THIS KIND OF SHIT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN WARNING ABOUT FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20030914/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/anti_terror_laws_2 New Terror Laws Used Vs. Common Criminals 1 hour, 13 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer PHILADELPHIA - In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes. The Justice Department (news - web sites) said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers. Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car. A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months. Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals. Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers. "Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Sunday New York Times Magazine section. It has a Dem/liberal bent but lands a hard, hard broadside on the Bushie cuts. 10 pages long and worth printing off. Geo. PS: Would be curious to hear from any Repubs on this which is my bent. It raised another nagging question for me on Bush economic policy... .
I've never read any of Ayn Rand's books. I flipped through one of her novels once in a bookshop but there was no sex in it so didn't bother buying it I don't know much about US politics but its well established in the UK that the left wing socialist labour party is much tougher on spending than the right wing, free market Tories (equivalent to the Republicans).It may be true in the US too. Clinton cut government spending by 3%; Dubya has increased it by 18%. BTW I don't why people on this board are so obsessed about tax. As traders we should be more concerned about having a good social safety net than worrying about taxes on the super rich. After the age of about 40 your parents may not be willing to continue supporting you
surely you jest. why are we obsessed with tax ?? if you ever earned any money and had to give 50% of it to the government---you might understand. we can build our own personal "safety net" without a nanny government.
Clinton cut government spending??? I'd like to see the proof of that. Bush and the timid Senate Republicans can rightly be criticized for going along on big spending, but the truth is they have done it largely to avoid Democrat attacks that they are "uncaring." There was also this incident known as "9/11". Taxpayers can only hope the Democrats continue their fatal obsession with undoing the modest Bush tax cuts. It is pretty clear that when faced with a choice between tax raisers and tax cutters, voters tend to go with the latter.
Now on the other hand, I wish someone could explain to me why the Amercian taxpayers are somehow responsible for rebuilding Iraq, a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. They should be reimbursing us for the cost of the war. Bush is seriously offkey on this one.
Although I agree to a degree, I think they are simply trying to avoid the situation where another tyrant gains power and takes over the country and oil reserves. Then we're right back where we started, and everyone will say I TOLD YOU SO. Saddam 2 is not the answer. peace axeman
Modest tax cuts huh.... from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-experts.html ""Average" Tax Cuts. Announcing his second big tax cut package in January 2003, Bush stated that "These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans. Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." But because the package was tilted heavily towards the very wealthy, the average tax cut for households in the middle quintile of the income spectrum was only $217, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center." Looks like the rich got the real tax cut. Who remembers during the presidential campaign that Bush criticized the Clinton Administration for the idea of nation building and he would not get America involved in such ordeals? Gee, $87 billion going to Iraq...for nation building.
Oh no, the horror!!! People who pay the most in taxes got more dollars back. Nevermind percentages. That is just soooo unfair!!!! Anyway I think the Brookings example is seriously flawed because I doubt it takes into account the vastly increased child tax credit, which adds a huge cut to families with a couple of kids. I saw another example in the WSJ that said the average family got around $1500 in cuts, which is serious jack to "middle income wage earners". Note to liberal readers: that phrase is normally translated as "the rich" or "those most able to pay" by your politicians.