I imagine that the US could put a lot of pressure on the EU pretty easily with the amount of economic ties the two regions have together. Not to mention that I doubt the Europeans are all that upset about expanding their own security states as this is a convenient excuse for both to do so.

Unless you pay no State or Federal taxes, you're quite wrong about that.

You fall under the "we don't give a shit because he doesn't vote and never will" category. The most useful information they can acquire is the little bit that tells them if you're for my guy, and I can get you to show up to vote. Past that, it doesn't matter all that much.

*sigh* The deficit is caused primarily by two things: The lower tax receipts from the huge destruction of wealth during the 2008 crash. The increased spending in the social safety net that automatically kicks in during such downturns. Long term out deficit is a product of bad demographics and health costs.

So no, the Government isn't a family, it doesn't tighten it's belt. It's an insurance company for old people with an army, and it sets its own wage.

Don't want it to be inflationary? Just sell off the debt the FED bought during Quantitative Easing.

But it's about time.

The correct answer is to not run a counter-attack ad because it legitimizes the argument and gets more play in the media.

To vote for it out of committee is ostensibly a vote for it, in the same way that in the Senate a vote for cloture can be used as a vote for it. The point for the politician is that it's just true enough for attack ads to be run on the subject. It's unfortunate that our politics aren't allowed the nuance they so deserve, but that's they way it is.

No, it won't ever leave committee. No one who has to run for reelection wants to be seen as soft on crime and drugs and that's EXACTLY what they'll be seen as if they vote for this thing to move it out of committee. Paul and Frank run in districts at the far right and left of the US political spectrum and can get away with this sort of thing, most of the rest of congress does not.

The only way I see Legalization coming about is the following scenario: California eventually does it, followed soon by Oregon and Washington seeking more desperately needed revenues. Then, in response to this, the more conservative states in the deep south try to push back against it, with some success at first, but then their gross need for revenues begins to outweigh the social factors, and it's done. That's when you'll see it taken up, or at least defacto, at the federal level. It's also not a question of "if" but "when" once California legalized it for medicinal use, the foot was in the door.

This one will die before it leaves committee.

Yes but for only $3.99 a month they could own your music!

Think about it: Physical media (hard drives/flash) is cheap, consumers have been using it for years, data on phones is getting shittier, caps are becoming more common, and the internet and electricity never go out. WE SHOULD CHARGE PEOPLE TO HOLD ON TO THEIR MUSIC!

You included my direct quotes to tear down arguments that I didn't make and have nothing to do with what I said. Pretty sure that's a straw man.