Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/26/10 10:51 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Obvious imperlism.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

Israel needs to wihdraw to the 1967 borders.

During the 1967 borders Jordan controlled a large portion of Jerusalem and would shoot off the walls into jews walking by. If they killed them it was like bonus points. All the land Israel control was either purchased of rightfully taken in provoked wars. They deserve all the land they have now, but what they are doing as far as moving settlements into arab territory is wrong. They should work that out.

---

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote:

Gun control.

With the general corruption of state police, especially in inner city areas, and the fact that the average response time of a police officer is 8 minutes, i think every sane person has an obligation to his or her family to keep a firearm (In a secure but none the less accessible location) Especially if you are a female and especially if you are poor. (Samuel Colt was the first feminist after all, the great equalizer and what have you)

No, disarming lawful citizens simply gives those unscrupulous individuals with bad intentions a green light to do what they want largely unimpeded and with a sense of safety.

Defense spending.

If I had to live in a Minimal state possible I would advocate an army no larger than what is necessary to defend a country, with a few nukes since countries with nukes really don't ever get invaded in any meaningful sense. In a more rational society in the future, Standing armies would largely be unnecessary, since historically defending guerrilla armies have always outperformed standing armies with fewer resources.

Health care reform.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

Taxes on the 'upper class' as most people fashion it do not exist in reality. The top Tax Bracket is only something like 300K per year. The current mentality of Soak the rich taxation has simply resulted in soaking people who want to be rich, not people who are already rich. Especially since, when we

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Stop supporting it. If the Evangelicals want to join with the Israelites in a crusade against the Muslims let them do it of their own volition and leave the rest of us out of it. But the other however many million Americans should not be made Targets simply because our defense department is filled with Aggressive megalomaniacs.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

No state's claim to it's territory is legitimate, at least in my eyes, as far as i am concerned, unless it explicitly permits secession in kind.

Obama's presidency.

He's working very hard to outperform his predecessor, need i say more?

---

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote: OK Newgrounds, just where do you guys lean on the left-right scale? Are you guys Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Populists, Socialists, or what? I'm a conservative Republican as of 1 year and 8 months ago. And also, where do you guys stand on the following issues?

Women's reproductive rights.

Her choice, any other way is not freedom.

Gun control.

We have the right to bear arms in order to take control of the country should the powers that be become tyrannical or corrupt. That point was passed long ago by the way.

Defense spending.

Less war, more technological and progressive action.

Health care reform.

Health care should be totally free.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

There should not be an upper class.

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Ideally we should have a symbiotic relationship with any and all groups of people around the globe.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

I don't agree with painting the world with invisible lines.

Obama's presidency.

A sham, much like any other presidency. He is a figurehead.

Feel free to include more issues that I may have left out to discuss here if you guys want.

---

I forgot about health care;

1) The AMA should have their Monopoly on the liscensure of doctors removed, though it is more than free to continue their practice, simply with competition.

2) The FDA should be Abolished, it's killed too many people already

3) The Tax Exempt status for employer based health insurance should either be removed or individual health insurance should also be granted equal tax exempt status so that there is no artificial incentive to chose one form of health insurance over another.

4) Insurance agencies will be permitted to sell their insurance anywhere in the country they so please.

5) Insurance buyers will not be required by law to buy any particular kind of health insurance, nor will they be required to buy health insurance at all.

6) Drug Patents will be abolished

7) Finally, medicare and medicaid should be abolished.

I haven't explained, in detail or at all, how and why I think this way. But neither has hardly anyone else. So if anyone finds this cruel or unusual, Know that I consider these policy suggestions, in the long run, far more humane and logical than yours.

---

As a social progressive and a fiscal conservative, I have this to say:

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote: Women's reproductive rights.

I support the right to an abortion in the first trimester, but with sponsored education about contraceptives and stuff like that.

Gun control.

Armed with the knowledge that roughly half of all gun related deaths are domestic cases, I believe that guns should be on a permit basis. If you need a gun for protection, you'll be willing to get a permit and buy a reasonable pistol. Some say you need it to fend against the government though. When that time comes, we'll have already become a dictatorship, and our guns will, honestly, have been taken away from us completely. In that case, I'll be one of the black market gun sellers because I know there'll be tons of pissed Americans wanting some.

Defense spending.

Oh god please reduce it! That monster is devouring our budget when we could be focusing our energy on becoming an economic power. History has shown that when a country focuses more energy on military at the cost of the economy, that country falls. America might be strong now, but not forever.

Health care reform.

Our health care system was unsustainable in the state that it was in prior to this bill. Sure, the bill isn't that great in its current form, but it's something, something that we needed for many years. Now to lower defense spending and make our government more efficient, to the point that we actually lower the deficit, and we might have ourselves a winning presidency down the road.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

Seal up the holes in the tax code, and I'm good where it's at. Honestly, it could be a bit higher so that we could actually do something about this deficit, but in this "me" society, not many people will agree with that. In fact, not many will agree with much of what I said.

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

A while ago, I would have supported protecting Israel. Nowadays, I realize that Israel can pretty much protect itself, and we're pretty much trying to control Israel. They don't want peace with the Palestinians, they want submission. All of their actions suggest that. Personally, I support continued effort with negotiations. Should that fail and Israel moves as the aggressor, I believe we should leave them to fend for themselves for a bit and get beat up for dragging us into their shit.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

Give some up, stop being dicks. Honestly. You can't do it in the name of peace? For sanity? for, perhaps, cohesion?

Obama's presidency.

The republicans tried to sabotage him, plain and simple. He should have answered to the repubs' bullshit long ago, but it's a good thing he's answering to it now. He let the Republicans define his presidency, and the far-right did such a thorough job of slandering him, they managed to convince 34% of the public, that's right, thirty-four percent, that Obama is a socialist. An equally scary number don't believe that he's an American citizen. That's sabotage, plain and simple. His bailouts were a clusterfuck, like the ones prior to his presidency, and his stimulus followed the same failed plan that the New Deal did, which provided only a temporary boost to the economy that fell right after some new deal programs ended. However, his healthcare bill, the incoming regulation bill and the possible immigration bill (which I'm sure will be tackled sometime during this presidency, either this summer or later) will definitely boost him up enough to make me vote for him next cycle.

Feel free to include more issues that I may have left out to discuss here if you guys want.

---

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote:

Libertarian

In the words of Penn Jillette...when someone says Congress ought to make a law; they probably ought not.

Women's reproductive rights.

This is actually a hard one for Libertarians. The core of the philosophy is minimal government and one person's right ends where another's begins (for example your right not to be offended ends with my right to free speech). On one hand I recognize that it involves a woman's body and her medical condition. However, the fetus is still a human life. Yes it is basically a parasite because it is not able to exist outside the mother's body until the 26th week. But it is still alive and human. So I do, personally, see it as the moral equivalent as murder.

But as stated in Freakenomics, there appears to be some social good in that it reduces the number of poor, at-risk children and therefore reduces crime.

But in the end I would like to see less abortions for better reasons. Career considerations are not something I find legitimate. Because what is the difference between snuffing out embroynic life to progress in a job and shooting your supervisor to get his job?

Gun control.

I am totally against it. As a political scientist I see scant evidence that it is effective at all. Instead the preponderance of evidence is that at best it has no effect on homicide rates and at worst actually increases them. Look at the US. The places with most gun deaths are gun free zones. Meanwhile states and locales with things like concealed carry and castle doctrines...violent crime rates decrease.

This even extends to "assault rifles". Semi-auto 'clones' of guns such as the M-16 and the AK-47 are used in less than 1% all firearm crime (murder, theft, armed-robbery, etc). Those few full-auto weapons in civilian hands are used in even few crimes.

What gun control does do is take time, money and manpower of local, state and federal government away from things like economic development and education...things that will do FAR more to curb crime.

Defense spending.

This is a constitutionally appropriate expenditure. However, it could be less. We need the F-22; but we don't need the Joint Strike Fighter. Then there is a ton of waste that I see (I recently stopped my pursuit of a Poli Sci PhD to go on active duty with the Air Force). So I think there can be some cuts.

Health care reform.

This is unconstitutional. The majority of people who are uninsured are not the poor people proponents tout...but young middle class singles and couples who would rather spend their money on things like cars, electronics and better apartments or homes they cannot afford.

Furthermore, I think it is one's right to make such a decision to not have insurance.

Finally, the government is probably more to blame for sky-rocketing healthcare costs due to mismanagement of programs such as Tricare (military healthcare) and Medicare.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

In this environment the top marginal rate should stay around 38%. Any more will suppress the private sector's ability to create jobs.

But what we also need is to raise taxes on the poor. Yes...the poor. Currently through things such as the EIC it is possible for people to get a negative tax rate. When I was first married with a child and making about $18K/yr I paid about $900 to the Feds. I got back $4,500. This is unsustainable.

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

Who cares? That is between themselves.

Obama's presidency.

I almost voted for the man. However I am disappointed in his presidency so far. He is proving to be another president in the mode of Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. Overspending and using a mismanaged social security fund to balance their addiction...the end result being a financial policy that is unsustainable and could lead to economic collapse.

---

At 5/1/10 03:24 AM, blackattackbitch wrote: As a social progressive and a fiscal conservative, I have this to say:

Defense spending.

Oh god please reduce it! That monster is devouring our budget when we could be focusing our energy on becoming an economic power. History has shown that when a country focuses more energy on military at the cost of the economy, that country falls. America might be strong now, but not forever.

While our military spending equals that of the next five powers...that is not the statistic that has meaning. Defense spending is not that great of a percentage of GNP to warrant major concern at this point. Can things be cut? Yes. But it is not that big of a monster nor is it what is consuming our budget. That would be Social Security and Medicare. Within the next 10-20 years these entitlement programs will require 100% of the Federal government's revenues to pay out what the government has so irresponsibly promised. These are the true monsters devouring our budget.

Health care reform.

Our health care system was unsustainable in the state that it was in prior to this bill. Sure, the bill isn't that great in its current form, but it's something, something that we needed for many years. Now to lower defense spending and make our government more efficient, to the point that we actually lower the deficit, and we might have ourselves a winning presidency down the road.

There are 9 million people on Tricare. There are also about 48 million on Medicare. How these programs work is the government tells doctors and hospitals what they will pay...and usually it is 1984 prices or about 40% of the bill. Doctors and hospitals have to make up this loss in order to remain open (something the government doesn't have to worry about)...so they pass it along to people with insurance or the means to pay.

Put another way; if the average hospital bill is $1,000 (an easily workable hypothetical example) then the government will only pay about $400 on average. This means the other $600 has to come from somewhere. Say only a third of these people go to the hospital per year (a low estimate) then we're looking at a $1.2 Billion shortfall that has to be made-up by the private sector. This is unsustainable public and economic policy.

But the administration and congressional Democrats don't want to talk about the government's role in causing sky-rocketing healthcare costs. Instead they'd rather talk about how it is irresponsible private sector corporations at the root of the problem. While I don't want to apologize or exonerate insurance companies...I don't think the government is any less to blame for the problem

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

Seal up the holes in the tax code, and I'm good where it's at. Honestly, it could be a bit higher so that we could actually do something about this deficit, but in this "me" society, not many people will agree with that. In fact, not many will agree with much of what I said.

I agree with you here. But what about the negative tax rate on people who don't pay anything in taxes? Should you get more than you paid in taxes on April 15th? Is that responsible with our deficit going up?

---

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote: Women's reproductive rights.

I believe it's impossible (and useless, given the fervency with which other people cling to their own ideas of morality) to define whether abortion is morally right/wrong. Given this, I think it should be left up to the states, as per the constitution, (ideally smaller divisions, but, you know).

Gun control.

Completely abolish.
More guns less crime.

Defense spending.

Greatly reduce. Focus on the defence forces actually being for, you know, DEFENCE.
Shut down foreign military bases, stop other countries from relying on our willingness to help them out and not spending much on their own militaries, stop being involved in ANYTHING that doesn't immediately threaten US security.
If you did all this, then huge defence spending would simply be unnecessary.

Health care reform.

A giant, running leap in the wrong direction.
Only capitalism can create a functioning, efficient system.
And guess what, it is from an actual LACK of a free market that healthcare is unaffordable in America, contrary to what you economic illiterate liberal sorts so desperately want to believe.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

Ideally, all taxes abolished.
realistically though:

Here's the thing. The "super rich" don't get taxed because they don't have incomes, really. It's all just non-monetary assets, and all expenditures can be written off as business expenses.
Now, the problem is, when people say they want to tax "the rich", said rich being people who earn $250k+ (yeah, because engineers and doctors don't already contribute enough to society), what this does is prevents the rich from breaking into super rich territory (though legitimate, beneficial to "society" means, too), allowing the super rich to stay free from competition from the up and coming rich, and prevents people becoming rich through their own productiveness, which creates wealth and jobs.

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

As much as I hate muslims, America has no obligation to help Israel and its not in their best interests to.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

given that their ideas of property rights/acquisition are completely bogus, then the idea of "deserving" land is pointless.

Obama's presidency.

Empty campaign rhetoric anyone?

It has been bad primarily because I believe the legislation he has introduced etc etc has been awful, but it could have been a lot worse if he had (been able to?) been as radical as his speeches etc suggested he would be.

---

At 4/24/10 11:18 PM, jedi-master wrote: OK Newgrounds, just where do you guys lean on the left-right scale? Are you guys Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Populists, Socialists, or what? I'm a conservative Republican as of 1 year and 8 months ago.

If I had to call myself anything, I'd probably identify as a minarchist. Too many people think of "libertarian" as either "anarcho-capitalist" or "paleocon trying to sound cool". Basically, I think that the government exists to prevent concentrations of power. Although the government is a concentration of power, it is (or at least, should be) controlled by the people, so the power is distributed to the people. However, I don't think the government should do much (not even it should have too much power!), beyond the typical executive and judicial things (courts, cops, and so on), business regulation, and rational social-contract sort of things. (yeah, none of this makes any sense, I'm sure... I'll try to find that old post) Also, I like the idea of a confederation, I don't like the 17th Amendment or the things that led up to it, and I prefer the Constitution to whatever top-heavy pile of garbage we have now.

Women's reproductive rights.

I don't know when a fetus becomes a person, and that's the central issue of abortion. I'll stick with pro-choice, though, just because I doubt the people who would be getting the abortions are probably incapable of raising children properly. Also, banning things like abortion only opens a horribly unsafe black market for them.

Gun control.

It doesn't work. Statistics have shown that it doesn't work, and common sense should show that it doesn't work: what good can come from disarming everyone except the people who don't care about the law? Waiting periods, however, I have no problem with; people can do some idiotic things when they're pissed off, and it's always better for them not to be able to go out and buy a gun. I also think that people who buy guns should have to learn how to use them, for pretty much the same reasons that people who buy cars have to learn how to use them before they drive them. Also, banning things like guns only opens a horribly unsafe black market for them.

Defense spending.

Too high. Spending in general is too high, but especially defense.

Health care reform.

Bills should never be that long. Congressmen should fully understand the bills that they're voting on, and the people should fully understand the bills that the congressmen are voting on. For all we know, the thing could have granted Obama absolute power.

Taxes on the upper class. Should it be less, more, or stay the same?

A flat tax would disproportionately affect the lower class, but the current situation, where almost half of the country pays no income tax, is absurd; why would people care about spending if it's not their money being spent? (Yes, there are rational reasons to care, but who says voters are rational?) Too high a tax rate, on the other hand, makes people less likely to put in the work necessary to earn more money.

The relations between the U.S. and Israel.

I don't know enough about the details, but I think we should definitely be supporting Israel to a degree large enough to ensure its stability and survival.

Whether Israel deserves to keep all of its land or give some to the Palestinians.

Israel should keep Jerusalem. If the Palestinians really want their own country, they can carve it out of something else, but not land full of Israeli development. Or just buy some land. Why should Israel's work be taken away from it?

Obama's presidency.

Because of the details of (and more importantly, the holes in) his background, my distrust for him extends far beyond my average distrust for generic politicians. Some of his rhetoric is far too Marxist, both economically and culturally, for my taste.

More issues:

Energy

Natural gas. We have a lot of it, so why not use it? Alternative energy would be great, but the technology to make them viable isn't there yet. I'm not sure about nuclear.

Censorship

The government has no place in it beyond preventing it. The free flow of information is essential for a functioning republic.

At 4/25/10 06:31 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: That's one way to put it, yes. Over all, I'm suggesting that people take over the production, and that the production is decided democratically.

No. Don't let the workers control the business, and don't give the business to the government. We've seen what happens in America under those systems, in the form of California's public sector unions, which have effectively taken over Californian politics and are in the process of strangling it to death: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_ca lifornia-unions.html

...bah, I'm probably just spewing slogans at this point, but oh well; it's almost 6am here, I haven't slept in ages, and I'm procrastinating on my linguistics term paper

---

Great web page dedicated to how to handle defense spending:
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/g ood-government/gg-20090227.html

This will give you a good idea of how much waste is in that system. What would be great is if we could get similar recommendations for all government departments. I have seen multiple articles that clearly outline what steps can be taken and what money can be saved by taking them for military spending. You never see this for other parts of government. I highly suspect that the accounting for other departments is "sketchy at best" and thus we just throw the money at the department and hope it gets put to a use for the people.

---

I'm a socialist ( long live socialism!) and also i'm not american..

Equal rights of both men and woman is something that is very important. Every human is equal to eachother and nobody is smarter or better. Something i don't understand is the right to have guns in America i understand protection is important but crime is much higher in the United States than in any other western society in past and present. Guns are easily to buy.

Why does america spend so much on her army while there is so much poverty in her own land. The government does not see that. The healthcare reform is one of the best choises that are made because everyone deserves it while the rich and conservatives still believe that the poor doesn't deserve it. It is a shame that those people are selfish and ignore the rights of everyone and not of those who have lots of money.

The government most help her people especially in very bad times. Not only the economic crisis but also the people are signs that poverty must be defeated. The rich people can affort to pay more tax than others solidarity doesn't kill you but selfishness will kill others.

The rich are corrupted by money, to relieve them from corruption share it with the poor

The world needs socialism in the U.S

---

At 5/15/10 08:39 AM, GameBlade wrote:

Equal rights of both men and woman is something that is very important. Every human is equal to eachother and nobody is smarter or better.

I beg to differ sir. There ARE smarter people than others. Better people than others, I don't know. That's more of an opinion to me.

Something i don't understand is the right to have guns in America i understand protection is important but crime is much higher in the United States than in any other western society in past and present. Guns are easily to buy.

Oh, if cellardoor6 heard you say that...I guess I'll have to take his place for now(albeit I'll do a terrible job at this). First off, it's been *proven* with endless numbers of statistics and just plain common sense that if one is not able to legally buy guns to protect him/herself in a given country, that country's crime rate would be higher in many cases than a country that grants its citizens the right to buy guns(as long as they aren't felons, mentally retarded, too young, etc.). A criminal isn't affected by gun control laws for the most part. They can easily buy the guns they need off the black market, where as the average law-abiding citizen wouldn't, and would be defenseless if he/she can't legally buy a gun.

Why does america spend so much on her army while there is so much poverty in her own land. The government does not see that.

The U.S. only spends about 3~4% of the federal budget on defense. Most other countries actually spend more money as a percentage of their budget on their militaries. If anything, we could easily afford to spend more. Oh, and since you don't even live in America, you can't honestly say that there's so much poverty here. How the hell would you know? I know for a fact that it's very much possible to make something of yourself here. That's why everyone wants to immigrate here to get a piece of "The American Dream".

The healthcare reform is one of the best choises that are made because everyone deserves it while the rich and conservatives still believe that the poor doesn't deserve it. It is a shame that those people are selfish and ignore the rights of everyone and not of those who have lots of money.

Another ignorant socialist comment from another socialist. Nice.

The government most help her people especially in very bad times. Not only the economic crisis but also the people are signs that poverty must be defeated. The rich people can affort to pay more tax than others solidarity doesn't kill you but selfishness will kill others.

Meh, I live on welfare and I know that the rich pay waaaaaaaaay more than anyone in taxes. They really can't afford to pay more despite what people say. The tax burden on them is simply too high.

The rich are corrupted by money, to relieve them from corruption share it with the poor

So...punish them because they're more successful than others financially? Socialists annoy me. Money does corrupt some, but taking it away from the rich isn't going to help. It'll only make the rich resent the poor even more and become even more resistant to helping them out in the future.

The world needs socialism in the U.S

Actually, if that happened, the world would practically collapse. There's so much money invested in the U.S. that if we magically converted to socialism, it would no doubt ruin the global economy. Socialism/Communism have been proven not to be successful dude. You just don't know that because you probably haven't experienced living in a capitalist society where your money isn't stolen from you to be given to some crackhead who won't know what to do with it, other than to buy some more crack.

---

At 5/15/10 08:39 AM, GameBlade wrote: Every human is equal to eachother and nobody is smarter or better.

Are you fucking nuts. Of course some people are smarter than other people.

Something i don't understand is the right to have guns in America i understand protection is important

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

but crime is much higher in the United States than in any other western society in past and present. Guns are easily to buy.

One of the reasons for the high crime rate is the war on drugs.

And in America, there is a general negative correlation between legal gun ownership and crime rates.

The healthcare reform is one of the best choises that are made because everyone deserves it while the rich and conservatives still believe that the poor doesn't deserve it.

If you want maximum possible healthcare quality, government run health care sis not teh option.

The best option would be a free market, something America doesn't have, before or after the healthcare bill.
We need to uncouple insurance from employment, and make/allow insurance companies to compete across state boarders.

It is a shame that those people are selfish and ignore the rights of everyone and not of those who have lots of money.

Rights? On what are you basing this concept of rights?

"Oh well people need X so therefore they have a RIGHT to X"

The government most help her people especially in very bad times.

The government CAN'T help the poor and has no real incentive to.

The people "demand" (with voting etc) they help the poor? Sure, fine, the government throws a shit load of money at teh problem, but like very other government program it fails to solve the problem.

Not only the economic crisis but also the people are signs that poverty must be defeated. The rich people can affort to pay more tax than others solidarity doesn't kill you but selfishness will kill others.

the ONLY WAY to eliminate poverty is through having a prosperous nation, which leads to employment and charity.

When you tax the rich, you prevent some/discourage investment. This investment leads to growth, and hence jobs. You can't make someone "unpoor" by giving them money, they need to be employed.

The rich are corrupted by money, to relieve them from corruption share it with the poor

Okay you're a total moron.
don't you think, if the rich are able to keep less of the money, won't they be even more ruthless in their attempt to obtain it to make up for their increased taxes?

The world needs socialism in the U.S

yeah so you know nothing about economics so stop championing socialism.