Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Society & Culture > Politics   »   If you were president and had control over $billions in spending

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
Old Oct 18, 2007, 01:13 PM
nicespringgirl's Avatar
nicespringgirl
Ultra Member
nicespringgirl is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,254
nicespringgirl See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.nicespringgirl See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
If you were president and had control over $billions in spending

What would you do?


Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:28 PM   #41  
Skell
Ultra Member
Skell is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,927
Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
And that is fine Skell. I respect your lifestyle and beliefs. My remark about the Socialistic Sissy...whatever I said was not a personal attack. You know that. It was to show the contrast of beliefs and how you will never change most rednecks minds!

I know that and i didnt take it as one. I think i am more like you guys than you think. Just a few issues where we disagree. Its why i come here to tell the truth!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:40 PM   #42  
Skell
Ultra Member
Skell is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,927
Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
The whole idea that "taking away people's guns gets them off the streets" is pure sh!theadedness.


Elliot

What i find pure sh1theadedness is accepting that there is an epidemic of gun violence involving children that nothing is wrong. But as we have sorted out thats just me and my culture. Im happy being a sh1thead. Beats being shotinthehead!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:43 PM   #43  
magprob
Ultra Member
magprob is offline
 
magprob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,649
magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Anything beats being shot in the head Skell. That's why you gotta practice your fast draw!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 06:34 AM   #44  
ETWolverine
Senior Member
ETWolverine is offline
 
ETWolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 898
ETWolverine See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ETWolverine See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ETWolverine See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
El you so cleverly regurgitate all this information as you always do with your biased spin on it and accuse others of not having data or evidence to back it up. And then when you are pressed to do so you provide web sites from biased organisation similar to that which i have posted above.

Just because you regurgitate facts from website that you think are right because they agree with you doesnt mean they are right.

And yet, here you are with no facts whatsoever to back up your assertion that gun control lowers gun violence. You can't even fine BIASED data that makes thatassertion... because it simply isn't true.

And just so you know, I don't get my data from pro-gun websites. I get them from crime statistics and gun ownership statistis put out by governments. The raw data, unfiltered by any organizations with a bias, speaks pretty clearly on its own. I don't need to spin it.

Quote:
You have children being killed each and every day because of gun violence. Surely you dont need me to provide facts of that?

How many? How often? Where? What are the gun cotrol laws like in the places where these events occur? Are the number of deaths from gun violence in locations with strict gun control laws lower or higher than those with more liberal gun policies? Without that data, you are speaking based on annecdotal information, not based on a true knowledge of the issue.

Quote:
Yet still you think that there is no issue. You all do!

Nobody has denied that there is an issue. Gun violence is a huge issue. There is simply no proof that banning guns will or has ever stopped gun violence. And there is quite a bit of proof to the contrary. We aren't disagreeing on the nature of the problem. It's the solution that you are proposing that I disagree with.

Quote:

We may be a much smaller country in population but in my memory we have never had a child gunned down at school. NEVER!!! We had the Port Arthur massacre which subsequently lead to change in gun laws in this country. Since then we have had a decrease in gun violence!

Interesting. But not entirely accurate.

In 2002, at Monash University, a foreign student killed two other students. Despite the strict gun control laws established in 1996. There was a huge uproar about how a foreigner was able to get his hands on a gun in the first place. The stricter gun laws don't seem to have been effective there, do they.

Additionally, according to Don Weatherburn, head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, gun ownership in Australia (specifically in NSW) is up since 1996. So much for getting the guns out of the hands of civillians.

And finally, in 2006, the British Journal of Criminology printed a peer-reviewed article that showed that there has been no significant change in crime statistics in Australia during the 10-year period since the gun laws in Australia were changed.

Then there's the fact that 85% of gun-crimes in Australia were committed with unregistered guns. How do the gun laws keep unregistered weapons out of the hands of criminals? The answer is that they don't. They only keep guns out of the hands of the people who obey the laws in the first place.

And as a side note, did you know that the rate of adult male gun suicides in Australia increased in the years following the 1996 crackdown in gun laws? I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it's clear that stricter gun control hasn't prevented gun suicides.

Quote:
And we citizens arent so paranoid that we feel violated because we dont have the opportunity to overthrow Bush's little lap dog Howard and his government.

That's because you're a sheeple and you follow the herd, even when you are in disagreement with it.

Quote:
I'm glad my kids will go to school in my country. Even gladder they wont ever set foot in one in yours!

So am I.

Quote:
As Kahan said "Americans see guns not through a lens of 20/20 facts but through an elaborate stained-glass window. Are you a big proponent of authority? If so, you probably see guns as a way to make the world safer — as a form of protection against evil deviants. Same goes for people whose identity is rooted in self-sufficiency. You see guns as a form of independence. So gun-control laws will not fix the problem, as far as you're concerned."

True to a point. But I tend to be a small-government conservative. I see guns as a protection from government authority as much as from evil deviants.

Quote:
Simply, i and many many millions of other in the world dont see it like you do. But of course we are wrong!!

I look forward to your next piece of diatribe!!

You aren't wrong because you disagree with me or see things differently than I do. You are wrong because you're wrong. You are wrong because the historical and statistical evidence shows that you are wrong... even in your own country, which you hold out as an example of how gun control works.

Elliot
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:10 PM   #45  
Skell
Ultra Member
Skell is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,927
Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
And yet, here you are with no facts whatsoever to back up your assertion that gun control lowers gun violence. You can't even fine BIASED data that makes thatassertion... because it simply isn't true.

Elliot

Because it would be pointless as the biased arguments you make. As ive said. Ive based my mind up by watching your kids being slaughtered each night on the news! Thats enough for me!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:19 PM   #46  
Duckling
Junior Member
Duckling is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 47
Duckling See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
I would establish affordable health care. Making taking care of your health a greater priority than fixing what you didn't take care of.

I would completely restructure Congress and establish term limits.

Abolish frivolous law suits and rewrite insurance laws.

Create a national driver's license instead of individual states complicating matters.

Increase funding small business start-ups. They are crucial to economic success.

And on the second day...


The small business start-ups is one I totally agree with.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:21 PM   #47  
Duckling
Junior Member
Duckling is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 47
Duckling See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello girl:

I'd give it back to the people I stole it from.

excon

I would have never thought of this. But yes, that's a good one too.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:32 PM   #48  
Duckling
Junior Member
Duckling is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 47
Duckling See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
First of all, NSG, your question makes an assumption that is in error.

The president does NOT control the money. Congress does. The power of the purse was specifically left to Congress so that the President would never become powerful enough to do the stupid things suggested above, like banning guns and creating "free" healthcare. The idea was that while the President has the power over the military and police in the USA, if he doesn't have control of the purse strings, he can never finance a coup. And in Congress has the power of the purse, but no control of the military, they will never be able to stage a coup for lack of military power. It is a checks-and-balances system.

Now, to some of the suggestions that I have seen above:

Ban guns? Are you nuts? Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed.

If you are so afraid of Bush becoming a dictator (a rediculous thought, but I've heard people say it), why would you deliberately play into that by calling for disarmament of the civilian population? Why would you give away the power to stop the threat of this person you see as a military tyrant?Elliot

Actually, what helped Nazi Germany was some American businesses and banks. The government should have stepped in more and stopped this. An example is IBM. I'm making this point because you are being extreme here. I'm going to show you the flipside of the coin that you brushed under the rug.
Vive le Canada: Before There Was A Hitler, There Were Nazis In America

However, I don't agree with total government control (obviously)...yet I also do not agree that we should take that control and hand it to elite businessmen. There has to be a balance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
As for "free" healthcare, do you mean free government-run health care? Because if you do, how are you going to fund it. Even the billions that are in the treasury wouldn't cover the costs for more than a year or so. Which means you would have to tax the country to keep such a system going. Which just means that it isn't really "free" is it.

And while you are spending all this money on "free" healthcare, who is going to pay for the upkeep of interstate highways, our telecommunications infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, our police, fire and other emergency services, our military, the intelligence services, our federally-funded education system, our overburdened court system, etc. Where is the money for all that boring but necessary stuff going to come from?Elliot

Maybe we should ask how the Canadians, Brits, and French do this? They all have free healthcare and maintain being amonst the richest countries in the world.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:41 PM   #49  
CaptainRich
Cars & Trucks Expert
CaptainRich is offline
 
CaptainRich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pale Blue Dot
Posts: 4,402
CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckling
Canadians, Brits, and French do this? They all have free healthcare and maintain being amonst the richest countries in the world.
Free? What's so good about free? Have you read elsewhere in this site when many have to wait anywhere from several days to several weeks to be seen by a real doctor or critical needs specialist?
Granted, much of our system is jaundiced by pharmaceutical companies
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 24, 2007, 03:42 PM   #50  
CaptainRich
Cars & Trucks Expert
CaptainRich is offline
 
CaptainRich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pale Blue Dot
Posts: 4,402
CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainRich See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Because it would be pointless as the biased arguments you make. As ive said. Ive based my mind up by watching your kids being slaughtered each night on the news! Thats enough for me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
i see kids being shot every day in their learning environment.
If your news is playing the images over and over again in your news media, it's because that media wants to distort your perception of the reality here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Kids, EVERYDAY being shot dead.
There aren't people being murdered every day, as you claim. It your source's tell you that, I'll label that as yellow journalism.

Comments on this post
Skell agrees: American news feeds reporting gun slaying are innacurate are they? Do i need to witness them first hand?
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
Boyfriend is spending the weekend with his ex. Rockabilly1955mama Relationships 7 Jul 7, 2007 11:04 PM
about how much am i looking at spending ? bumby401 Heating & Air Conditioning 3 Jun 26, 2007 09:45 AM
spending a year in the us timdonnachie Skating 1 May 28, 2007 12:42 PM
Federal Govt. discretionary outlays ($billions) Steffie11345 Finance & Accounting 1 Jan 9, 2007 11:39 AM
Average holiday spending $ ? posheak Finance 2 Nov 15, 2006 10:36 AM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 PM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.