A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-->And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, s It's a bitch isn't it? This is why I am in favor of a flat % tax.
This demographic will quite happily click on shiny things however:laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
As CG said, the money's gotta come from somewhere. Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending... but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? As i see it, there are really two possibilities - either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), or there are favors being cashed in. :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. The return being more jobs created and thus more taxes collected. It has to work this way or the whole system fails. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Christian Graus wrote: So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. The return being more jobs created and thus more taxes collected. It has to work this way or the whole system fails. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Sure - that's what I said. So why does this only apply to the rich ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
As CG said, the money's gotta come from somewhere. Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending... but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? As i see it, there are really two possibilities - either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), or there are favors being cashed in. :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending an absolutely marvelous idea. Shog9 wrote: but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? not at all. when you determine that the government is the largest single employer then realize there is no accountability (Civil Service regulations) and there is no, repeat, no incentive for those employees to do a good job - I have no problem at all eliminating all taxes except those necessary to: 1) fund the military, 2) protect the borders, 3) build roads needed to allow military equipment to move rapidly from one part of the country to another, which also provides an efficient mechanism to move goods thus helping commerce. Locally I'm willing to pay taxes to fund education, grades 1 thru 12, to fund a police and fire department, pay a stipend to public officials. Shog9 wrote: My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? It would bother me if there weren't tax cuts. I work until May, maybe June, before I am actually putting money in my own pocket. Until then I'm working to pay taxes. Shog9 wrote: either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), Check the pork that gets incorporated into any "revenue" bill. The congress (both houses) find more ways to waste money than there is time for you and I to count them. Shog9 wrote: or there are favors being cashed in. check for all the things in West Virginia with the name Byrd on them. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. One of the real benefits of a tax cut. Christian Graus wrote: The theory is that government provides less for you As it should be. why should the government provide anything for me, other than a secure border and a military to protect me? Locally we should pay a tax to fund education, fire departments and a police department. Other than that, I want nothing provided me by teh government. Christian Graus wrote: We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Here is where we really difer. When you say (to paraphrase), "they're buying my vote" - I content that I am just keeping MY money. Repeat, I believe since I work for it then it is MINE. When I am taxed MY money is being taken from me. Christian Graus wrote: Which means interest rates will go up Interest rates are a function of the amount of money available to borrow, a supply and demand thing. If I am able to keep my paycheck then I'll either spend it on consumer goods or save it. If I spend it on cumsumer goods, then I am creating jobs since when I buy some "X" number of widgets, someone has to make more. If I save it then the bank can loan it since that is where I would put it. Christian Graus wrote: I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. OSund like I had the chance to learn something in the 80's that you didn't have the chance to learn - never get a variable rate mortage. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Sure - that's what I said. So why does this only apply to the rich ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: So why does this only apply to the rich ? It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't exclude them either. A huge percentage of the poor in the US pay no federal income taxes. That's right... $0. So instead of handing them cash (ie tax surplus credit), IMO we are better off as a society by giving them a job and letting them be responsible for themselves instead of dependent on the government, plus the long term results are better. As for giving the rich a little bit bigger tax break (on this occassion) than the middle class: Under Clinton the rich were being robbed. Their percentage of the whole was growing disproportionately. Eventually you start losing your motivation to excel when all the extra money goes to the government. Bush's tax cuts were more an evening of the table than anything else. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Christian Graus wrote: Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. One of the real benefits of a tax cut. Christian Graus wrote: The theory is that government provides less for you As it should be. why should the government provide anything for me, other than a secure border and a military to protect me? Locally we should pay a tax to fund education, fire departments and a police department. Other than that, I want nothing provided me by teh government. Christian Graus wrote: We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Here is where we really difer. When you say (to paraphrase), "they're buying my vote" - I content that I am just keeping MY money. Repeat, I believe since I work for it then it is MINE. When I am taxed MY money is being taken from me. Christian Graus wrote: Which means interest rates will go up Interest rates are a function of the amount of money available to borrow, a supply and demand thing. If I am able to keep my paycheck then I'll either spend it on consumer goods or save it. If I spend it on cumsumer goods, then I am creating jobs since when I buy some "X" number of widgets, someone has to make more. If I save it then the bank can loan it since that is where I would put it. Christian Graus wrote: I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. OSund like I had the chance to learn something in the 80's that you didn't have the chance to learn - never get a variable rate mortage. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: . why should the government provide anything for me, other than a secure border and a military to protect me? So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Mike Gaskey wrote: Locally we should pay a tax to fund education, fire departments and a police department. Other than that, I want nothing provided me by teh government. OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? Mike Gaskey wrote: When you say (to paraphrase), "they're buying my vote" - I content that I am just keeping MY money. They aren't really offering tax cuts here, at least not for people who earn more than $50k. They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). Mike Gaskey wrote: OSund like I had the chance to learn something in the 80's that you didn't have the chance to learn - never get a variable rate mortage. Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: So why does this only apply to the rich ? It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't exclude them either. A huge percentage of the poor in the US pay no federal income taxes. That's right... $0. So instead of handing them cash (ie tax surplus credit), IMO we are better off as a society by giving them a job and letting them be responsible for themselves instead of dependent on the government, plus the long term results are better. As for giving the rich a little bit bigger tax break (on this occassion) than the middle class: Under Clinton the rich were being robbed. Their percentage of the whole was growing disproportionately. Eventually you start losing your motivation to excel when all the extra money goes to the government. Bush's tax cuts were more an evening of the table than anything else. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't exclude them either. Sure. I pay 47 cents in the dollar tax, so I'm all for tax cuts on the high end of the scale ( and the point where that tax rate kicks in is a joke, I am not rich, my any means ). Mike Mullikin wrote: giving them a job What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for giving the rich a little bit bigger tax break One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. They will use it to increase their meagre standard of living, I'll use it to go on holidays more. So who needs the money more ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Eventually you start losing your motivation to excel when all the extra money goes to the government. Like I said, pretty much 50 cents in the dollar. It doesn't stop me chasing work, although it hurts. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: . why should the government provide anything for me, other than a secure border and a military to protect me? So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Mike Gaskey wrote: Locally we should pay a tax to fund education, fire departments and a police department. Other than that, I want nothing provided me by teh government. OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? Mike Gaskey wrote: When you say (to paraphrase), "they're buying my vote" - I content that I am just keeping MY money. They aren't really offering tax cuts here, at least not for people who earn more than $50k. They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). Mike Gaskey wrote: OSund like I had the chance to learn something in the 80's that you didn't have the chance to learn - never get a variable rate mortage. Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? A 30 year fixed rate mortgage is the most usual here (in the last few years), with 20 yr and 15 yr close behind. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Christian Graus wrote: Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? A 30 year fixed rate mortgage is the most usual here (in the last few years), with 20 yr and 15 yr close behind. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Damn. That would totally rock. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't exclude them either. Sure. I pay 47 cents in the dollar tax, so I'm all for tax cuts on the high end of the scale ( and the point where that tax rate kicks in is a joke, I am not rich, my any means ). Mike Mullikin wrote: giving them a job What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for giving the rich a little bit bigger tax break One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. They will use it to increase their meagre standard of living, I'll use it to go on holidays more. So who needs the money more ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Eventually you start losing your motivation to excel when all the extra money goes to the government. Like I said, pretty much 50 cents in the dollar. It doesn't stop me chasing work, although it hurts. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? That's a tough one. I can be a cold heartless bastard at times but I don't want to see anybody starve - certainly not children. Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. Christian Graus wrote: One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). Here (with the latest Bush tax cut) it wasn't a rate change per say. The rich have always paid a much higher rate than the middle class and poor. (I wasn't kidding when I said most of the US poor pay no federal income tax.) The tax cut was more opening a few windows so capital gains aren't plundered by taxes and eliminating estate taxes (death taxes). Christian Graus wrote: But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. If they are already paying nothing the only other choice is paying them. I'd rather the extra money be a carrot rather than a gift. Christian Graus wrote: So who needs the money more ? That becomes a slippery slope. Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: . why should the government provide anything for me, other than a secure border and a military to protect me? So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Mike Gaskey wrote: Locally we should pay a tax to fund education, fire departments and a police department. Other than that, I want nothing provided me by teh government. OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? Mike Gaskey wrote: When you say (to paraphrase), "they're buying my vote" - I content that I am just keeping MY money. They aren't really offering tax cuts here, at least not for people who earn more than $50k. They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). Mike Gaskey wrote: OSund like I had the chance to learn something in the 80's that you didn't have the chance to learn - never get a variable rate mortage. Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Yes,I am against public hospitals. Roads, police, firemen and jails I am willing to fund locally (not at the federal level) through property tax. Christian Graus wrote: OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? No, not magically but thru property tax at the local level. Christian Graus wrote: They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). This speaks to one of the real problems I have with professional politicians. It becomes their job and to stay employed from election cycle to election cycle they have to do something to create a product the masses will buy (thru votes). I strongly favor term limits. By the way, at one time (early in USA history) on land owners could vote. Women were also excluded. Thus there wan't a need to "buy" the votes of the masses. Christian Graus wrote: Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. I'm currently paying off a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. 2 years to go. In teh 80's I had a variable rate that hit 14%. Nearly killed me because it was a very (by my standards) expensive home. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Damn. That would totally rock. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Yes,I am against public hospitals. Roads, police, firemen and jails I am willing to fund locally (not at the federal level) through property tax. Christian Graus wrote: OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? No, not magically but thru property tax at the local level. Christian Graus wrote: They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). This speaks to one of the real problems I have with professional politicians. It becomes their job and to stay employed from election cycle to election cycle they have to do something to create a product the masses will buy (thru votes). I strongly favor term limits. By the way, at one time (early in USA history) on land owners could vote. Women were also excluded. Thus there wan't a need to "buy" the votes of the masses. Christian Graus wrote: Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. I'm currently paying off a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. 2 years to go. In teh 80's I had a variable rate that hit 14%. Nearly killed me because it was a very (by my standards) expensive home. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes,I am against public hospitals. Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? That's a tough one. I can be a cold heartless bastard at times but I don't want to see anybody starve - certainly not children. Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. Christian Graus wrote: One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). Here (with the latest Bush tax cut) it wasn't a rate change per say. The rich have always paid a much higher rate than the middle class and poor. (I wasn't kidding when I said most of the US poor pay no federal income tax.) The tax cut was more opening a few windows so capital gains aren't plundered by taxes and eliminating estate taxes (death taxes). Christian Graus wrote: But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. If they are already paying nothing the only other choice is paying them. I'd rather the extra money be a carrot rather than a gift. Christian Graus wrote: So who needs the money more ? That becomes a slippery slope. Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: That's not even remotely what I said. Sorry, just me taking an idea and running with it... to it's extreme worse case conclusion. ;P Christian Graus wrote: Do you think we could do it ? Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Christian Graus wrote: That's not even remotely what I said. Sorry, just me taking an idea and running with it... to it's extreme worse case conclusion. ;P Christian Graus wrote: Do you think we could do it ? Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. I reckon when the backlash to all this PC crap comes, it will come in a major way. I hope I'm here to see it. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes,I am against public hospitals. Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR