Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
Even before the 9/11 attacks our government was in a tight fiscal situation (mostly due to Bush's tax cut). There are much more important things we could be spending money on then a massively expensive missile defense system that is not guaranteed to work.
Which is more costly? Not having yet another anti-smoking poster, or having an ICBM vaporize Chicago? In all seriousness, think before you press Send.
Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
If we only put more money toward paying off the national debt then our government will not be spending as much money on interest from the debt and ultimately we could lower taxes permanently. Or we could spend the money on important domestic programs such as education, health, and state programs. Basically it is just a matter of which party you support; Republicans want the missile defense while Democrats do not.
Why is money the Democrat answer to everything? After 50 years of Welfare, you people still don't get it, do you?
Handing people a check every month to sit on the couch and make babies does not help them. It creates dependency. Dependency, as new-agers are so fond of telling us all, is bad. Apparently, as long as these new dependents keep voting Democrat though, that is okay.
When you pay someone to do something, they tend to keep on doing it. It is kind of like inertia that way, but human inertia is a far more powerful force. If you want to help people, you have to put the profit in the solution, not the symptom.
Let's take world hunger as an example. The present popular solution is for people to give food to the people who need it. The problem is, there aren't enough people or transports to do the job. So far, no one has offered a solution.
The typical Democrat solution would be to send more money. This makes sure that people realize that there is big money in people starving to death, and it will go on indefinitely.
My idea is this: make all costs of shipping food to starving nations worth 10 times their dollar value in tax credits. That means if Federal Express has three of its cargo planes fly food to the Sudan, and it costs Federal Express $100,000 for each flight, they just made $3,000,000 in tax credits. Seems to me that the big money now lies in sending food to the starving, not sending money to agencies that can't get food anywhere.
Let's say Brinks Security wants in on the big tax cuts. Groovy. Some of their boys step forward for hazard pay to ride 30mm cannon on the shipments, to make sure they get where they're intended. Total cost to Brinks, $50,000 per guard, ten guards per shipment. Brinks just made $45 million in tax cuts.
Let me tell ya something. If the world governments started doing this, world hunger would be a bad memory, and nothing more.
And let's not forget that these companies now have more money, and can now afford to expand, hire more people, create more jobs, end dependency, etc... And those ex-starvaing people can now have decent lives, and maybe become a stable economy that can stand on its own, and become a trading partner, and now there's more jobs, more money, more good life for once poverty-stricken people.
I think the world needs to focus on the big issues, like hunger, and quit squabbling over crap like Isreal and Palestine. Screw 'em. Close the borders, airdrop lots of ammo, and wait to see who comes out alive. In the meantime, let's get something worthwhile done.
(course I didn't win, my views on the Korean War cost us dear!)
