It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2012 : 40 000 new laws to go into effect

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I know my post came off a little aggressive, I was trying to point out the focus on those and how those.

As much as I agree that certainly parts of the money goes to bankers and whatever, and others to social service, we can't exactly pinpoint where all the money goes.

I'm not saying that 40 000 new laws in a year is a good thing, I'm just implying that these law systems are amazingly complex, thus the possibility of most of it to be legit. Of course you have to keep in mind that they are working within the framework of the existing system... inside the box if you will. Trying to perpetuate something that doesn't work always gets out of hand.

I'm not however, excluding the possibility that corrupt laws get pushed in. 40 000 is an impressive number and would make it easier to stick some rotten apples in there.

When I mentioned starvation, it was to mean that these people could earn enough to buy food. Food stamps are good, but they are still just a plaster used on a wound that needs surgery. I was not defending the way things are done. If someone doesn't have enough for food even with a job, what makes you think he or she has enough for anything else? It doesn't solve the poverty problem, but it does help the people who are working to make a living... which every human being wants. If that means a few less toys for the well-off, I don't think it's a big sacrifice on a human level. And I know all about the gap between the rich and the poor, and yes it pisses me off too. I'd much rather see everyone have a full stomach and a roof over their heads, but given the current situation I won't spit on the idea of preventing more homelessness.

yes I know that putting more money in the system is partly responsible for inflation. And yes I know it reduces buying power. You go around twisting my words into something I didn't say without an idea of who I am or what I know. What do you do to try and make the world better? Do you sit around crying bankers and just take it?

There is ALWAYS more than one side to a coin, that is the reality of our world, whether we like it or not. Even a corrupt system harbors good people. Different people see the world in very different ways.

Personal responsibility is a dreamy concept, and is something we should strive for, I don't think our complex world is ready for such a leap.... there are possibilities in between.

I don't know where the reference to Georges Orwell's 1984 came from. I'm not preaching surveillance and YES there are limits to private life invasion. Do you really think every law has to do with personal freedoms?

I disagree with your last point. Although the threat of the fine won't stop many, once you pay a large amount for something stupid, you usually don't do it. It doesn't mean you agree , but you don't want to pay that again..... so that will stop more.

To your comment on the infinity of human stupidity... I'd say that our love, compassion and other beautiful things... it all depends on who you want to be, how you see your world, who you hang out with....we all have our moments of stupidity and our moments of brilliance.

Don't give up on human beings yet.... I was there before and it's a tormenting place.... don't have to be religious to have a little faith in your own kind.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
the modern dark ages have begun!! digital serfdom.

the people pushing the laws, taking orders from a higher up, continuing the process more efficiently.
who are they and why do they do what they do? these are the sorts of things we need to publically establish, since they do it to everyone else.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
The State believes that they must regulate and control the populace. They feel that we lack definition and containment that we need "laws" and guidance to dictate our smallest activities in order to maintain an "ordered" society.

Succumb OP to the Will of the State -- for it will win (just look at North Korea, Cuba, etc) and all will be well.
edit on 1-1-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
i'm pretty sure during the day the average person probably breaks 10-15 laws without realizing it. and that might be a low ball figure.

that's the problem with having a full time congress. their job is to pass laws. that's what they get paid to do.

and in 100 years at this rate, we'll have 4,000,000 new laws to incarcerate and fine our grand kids.

who the f-ck is congress working for. another concern is that eventually they'll make so many things illegal that they'll start to seriously consider passing laws against things we thought were untouchable just for the fact that they have nothing left to legislate against.

welcome to the 4th reich.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I don't think that these laws are all bad. However i dont like how little faith the american government has in its own citizens not to be idiots. I dont think that people need laws like this to "hold your hand while you cross the street". While i don't think that raising min. wage is necesarilly a bad thing (obviously its not a good long term solution) i cant help but be reminded of the social security act. Sure you get e.i. and other little benifits out of it but that whole system was set up so that your work could be used as a lean to a loan to get the country out of debt in the dirty thirties. One thats still getting paid off... just remember that nothing happens by "accident" with this sort of thing whether its to stop people from being stupid or something more sinister there's a reason for it being there.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Now hold on a minute.. I see a lot of this as a GOOD thing, in that many of these new laws are designed to strip the feds from some of that power over the states and get back to more of the states being in control of themselves, which is the way it should be.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I'm supporting Ron Paul, but I also don't agree with everything he says. That being said, What is everyone bitching about? 95% of these are STATE LAWS. Isn't that what all Ron Paul supporters are screaming about all the time? If you want total States Rights and the Federal Government out of it then you can't bitch about 40,000 new laws taking effect in different states, because that is their right isn't it?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you want total autonomy of the states (Widely differing and ridiculous laws state by state) or you don't.

Granted it may be a little easier to change the 'line-up' in state government, but I know a lot of people would end up being screwed, and either end up living in what they feel is a mini fascist country, or having to move to a different state.

That's just my opinion though.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Social Security could not possibly be raised by $450 or even remotely close to that amount.

The percentage is 3.6% so if a recipient received say $1800 a month, which is somewhere near the top end, amounts to an increase of $64.80 .

My own Social Security was raised this year by $23.00

Perhaps you mean that $450.00 SS total increase to be for the year ?

For those on fixed incomes, Social Security has not kept up with inflation. It remains a well funded program that gives out only a fraction of what it should. IMHO



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
What did Rome had to say about this kind of stuff...


'And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."

Tacitus



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

Considering how they enforce the immigration laws, does it mater if any new laws are passed? [end sarcasm]



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
Don't get me wrong, I'm supporting Ron Paul, but I also don't agree with everything he says. That being said, What is everyone bitching about? 95% of these are STATE LAWS. Isn't that what all Ron Paul supporters are screaming about all the time? If you want total States Rights and the Federal Government out of it then you can't bitch about 40,000 new laws taking effect in different states, because that is their right isn't it?


Why did no one answer this? Ron Paul supporters should be cheering all these now STATE laws. This is exactly what would happen (times 50) if Paul turns over everything to the states. We'll have pet laws, gun laws, abortion laws, voting laws, immigration laws, indecency laws, discriminatory laws, hate laws, property laws, workforce laws, regulation laws, drug laws... you name it... we'll have more laws that we know what to do with! And each state's laws will be different, so if you're traveling, you best make sure you know all the laws in all the states you're traveling through!

Ridiculous to complain about 40,000 new state laws and support Ron Paul...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Ridiculous to complain about 40,000 new state laws and support Ron Paul...


Hmm .....
Using your logic, if I don't support RP , then these 40,000 new laws would somehow evaporate?

Blaming him for something he is not remotely connected too is a bit of a stretch, but not new for RP

detractors.

What's next to blame him for, the Demise of the McRib ?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Using your logic, if I don't support RP , then these 40,000 new laws would somehow evaporate?


That's not my logic at all and has nothing in common with our earth logic. I said there will be this TIMES 50 if he becomes president. Nowhere did I blame him for THESE laws. Just the ones to come when he turns everything over to the states.

Typical defense, though... Twist my words and put words in my mouth... and say something totally absurd. That should do it!



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


That's just the way they are presenting the news, gay and disabled people are severely under-represented in education. They're not suggesting that being gay is a disability. I think you're just being a little too sensitive on this aspect.

The fact is, whether the "straight world" recognizes it of not, hundreds of thousands of gay people were arrested along with the Jews and the Communists in Nazi Germany. Hundreds of thousands of gay people have been murdered in hate crimes around the world. There are thousands of thousands of gay men and women who have served their country and died in battle. There are notable names throughout history who happened to be gay. If anyone knows the real story of Bletchley Park they'll know one particular gay gentleman who was basically erased from the history books until very recently!

Black history, with all the protests and fights for equality is taught in every school. The suffragettes and feminism is taught in schools. The Stonewall movement and the ongoing fight that gay people have had to endure (and STILL endure) just to get the same rights as other citizens deserves to be a part of that education too.

As for the laws, it's obviously a mixed bag. There will, no doubt, be laws in there that we would support. But does that make the rest of them okay?
It's clear that the states and fed gov are gonna need a whole lot of cash in the coming years if they ever expect to climb out of the hole they're in (and if you look at the facts and figures, it is fundamentally impossible). All those new laws will mean a lot of revenue for the gov.

IMO, it all often comes down to population size. There is a breaking point, where no system can effectively govern such a large proportion of the people. We've seen this in Europe, in the UK, the USA, and throughout history. When the reach of one government covers so many diverse communities something is bound to break. It could be almost anything that kicks it off, but usually an injustice or sense of failure.

It's almost my mantra that we need smaller communities, smaller government, more effective and responsive to the people. But that doesn't come easy and a central government ruling all will not give up power to the people willingly.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Using your logic, if I don't support RP , then these 40,000 new laws would somehow evaporate?


That's not my logic at all and has nothing in common with our earth logic. I said there will be this TIMES 50 if he becomes president. Nowhere did I blame him for THESE laws. Just the ones to come when he turns everything over to the states.


But it should be the states enacting their own laws for the benefit of their own community. There are thousands of different communities all over the USA, and what suits one will not suit another. If that means each state enacting their own laws, and the culmination of them being 1 million across the USA, that's fine, they'll all reflect the will of the people they actually influence, and not be forced upon communities against their will by a government that thinks it has the right to dictate how people cross the street.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
But it should be the states enacting their own laws for the benefit of their own community.


I actually support many state laws and states' rights.

My POINT is that Ron Paul supporters are complaining about 40,000 new state laws!
If Ron Paul gets to be president, there will be 500,000 new state laws! Are they going to complain or rejoice?

Can't have it both ways. That's my point.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
Well at least SOMEONE acknowledged my post. Apparently the "die hards" only have a few bumper-sticker issues they like to talk about but when someone points out the repercussions for those actions they have nothing to say.
Star for you




new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join