Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Without the military who exactly is going to protect your healthcare or your way of life at all?  So you don't need people protecting the country?  Taking money to pay for people who choose NOT to work, are illegal and don't deserve a thing,  or have made no effort to be responsible financially in their life is QUITE different from a country not having a military to protect itself.   Were you being sarcastic or just incredibly stupid or naive?   

 

 

No, you just need to brush up on reading comprehension.  I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be a military, I was making a comparison between protection rights.  I don't know how much more I can simplify it.......I'll give it a shot.

 

If my tax dollars go into funding a military that is there to protect the lazy, the criminal, the evil, and flat out unconstructive citizens of the U.S., why isn't it ok for my Tax dollars to do the same, but on the medical front?

 

The military is needed because it protects the innocent and good citizens of the U.S.  Sure there are a bunch of people in the country who might not deserve that protection , but protecting them as well is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of the innocent.  Same should apply with health care.

 

It's just more screwing over the innocent to punish the guilty.  Which is a major theme in conservatism.  Punishing responsible drug users by making a substance illegal because some people can't control their habits, putting innocent people on death row , The Patriot Act, etc.

It's not all conservatives though Liberals do it as well.  Which makes you think conservatives would understand this concept considering anti-gun control is a major talking point.  One of the few that I actually agree with.

 

Why should you be taxed to take care of anyone?  Why should anyone have their minds manipulated from birth to believe that they are entitled to something that is someone else's?

I work, it's my money.  You work, it's your money.  You don't work, you get NO money.  But what we have is people who think they don't work, or work very little, and have a right to take other peoples money because some politician or political group put it in their heads that thinking that way was morally right and feasible.  It's not.

 

Ok cool, I agree, sort of.

 

I don't want to pay for the military.  Should that be my right?  According to your post it is.  After all it is my money.  What if me and 150 million other people didn't want our money to go to the military.  What then?

 

 

I'm not proposing anything in this thread.  I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in saying taking money from people to provide health is wrong, but taking money from people to provide military protection isn't.  In both instances, you're taking money by force without asking.  Why is one ok, but the other isn't?

 

If you want Healthcare you need to Change the Constitution. The Milatary is in there. Healthcare isent, If you want it on a State Level then thats your states right. You have NO right to force it on Texas (For example).

 

The Airforce is not in the constitution. If you want to be consistent, then you have to quit funding the Airforce until you amend the constitution.

Neither is Separate is not Equal, established by Brown V Board of Education.

So I guess for now according to you it's ok to segregate schools, until they pass an Amendment.

The Air Force is a branch of the military.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Without the military who exactly is going to protect your healthcare or your way of life at all?  So you don't need people protecting the country?  Taking money to pay for people who choose NOT to work, are illegal and don't deserve a thing,  or have made no effort to be responsible financially in their life is QUITE different from a country not having a military to protect itself.   Were you being sarcastic or just incredibly stupid or naive?   

 

 

No, you just need to brush up on reading comprehension.  I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be a military, I was making a comparison between protection rights.  I don't know how much more I can simplify it.......I'll give it a shot.

 

If my tax dollars go into funding a military that is there to protect the lazy, the criminal, the evil, and flat out unconstructive citizens of the U.S., why isn't it ok for my Tax dollars to do the same, but on the medical front?

 

The military is needed because it protects the innocent and good citizens of the U.S.  Sure there are a bunch of people in the country who might not deserve that protection , but protecting them as well is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of the innocent.  Same should apply with health care.

 

It's just more screwing over the innocent to punish the guilty.  Which is a major theme in conservatism.  Punishing responsible drug users by making a substance illegal because some people can't control their habits, putting innocent people on death row , The Patriot Act, etc.

It's not all conservatives though Liberals do it as well.  Which makes you think conservatives would understand this concept considering anti-gun control is a major talking point.  One of the few that I actually agree with.

 

Why should you be taxed to take care of anyone?  Why should anyone have their minds manipulated from birth to believe that they are entitled to something that is someone else's?

I work, it's my money.  You work, it's your money.  You don't work, you get NO money.  But what we have is people who think they don't work, or work very little, and have a right to take other peoples money because some politician or political group put it in their heads that thinking that way was morally right and feasible.  It's not.

 

Ok cool, I agree, sort of.

 

I don't want to pay for the military.  Should that be my right?  According to your post it is.  After all it is my money.  What if me and 150 million other people didn't want our money to go to the military.  What then?

 

 

I'm not proposing anything in this thread.  I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in saying taking money from people to provide health is wrong, but taking money from people to provide military protection isn't.  In both instances, you're taking money by force without asking.  Why is one ok, but the other isn't?

 

If you want Healthcare you need to Change the Constitution. The Milatary is in there. Healthcare isent, If you want it on a State Level then thats your states right. You have NO right to force it on Texas (For example).

 

Cool, then we change the constitution.  I never got why people pointed to the constitution to argue whether something is right or wrong.  We're supposed to determine what is right and then put it in the constitution.  It's just a piece of paper that holds laws voted on by society, why some people think that we should conform to the constitution instead of it conforming to us is beyond me.

 

That still doesn't answer the question as to why it's ok to force people to pay for military protection they may or may not want, but not ok to force them to pay for medical protection they may or may not want.

It's a piece of paper that documents ideas born out of people who were familiar with tyrannical governments.  It's a piece of paper that has served as a starting point for people around the world that dream of their own freedom and liberty.

Sure, those principles are written on a "piece of paper".  But how does that diminish the importance of the principles?

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Without the military who exactly is going to protect your healthcare or your way of life at all?  So you don't need people protecting the country?  Taking money to pay for people who choose NOT to work, are illegal and don't deserve a thing,  or have made no effort to be responsible financially in their life is QUITE different from a country not having a military to protect itself.   Were you being sarcastic or just incredibly stupid or naive?   

 

 

No, you just need to brush up on reading comprehension.  I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be a military, I was making a comparison between protection rights.  I don't know how much more I can simplify it.......I'll give it a shot.

 

If my tax dollars go into funding a military that is there to protect the lazy, the criminal, the evil, and flat out unconstructive citizens of the U.S., why isn't it ok for my Tax dollars to do the same, but on the medical front?

 

The military is needed because it protects the innocent and good citizens of the U.S.  Sure there are a bunch of people in the country who might not deserve that protection , but protecting them as well is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of the innocent.  Same should apply with health care.

 

It's just more screwing over the innocent to punish the guilty.  Which is a major theme in conservatism.  Punishing responsible drug users by making a substance illegal because some people can't control their habits, putting innocent people on death row , The Patriot Act, etc.

It's not all conservatives though Liberals do it as well.  Which makes you think conservatives would understand this concept considering anti-gun control is a major talking point.  One of the few that I actually agree with.

 

Why should you be taxed to take care of anyone?  Why should anyone have their minds manipulated from birth to believe that they are entitled to something that is someone else's?

I work, it's my money.  You work, it's your money.  You don't work, you get NO money.  But what we have is people who think they don't work, or work very little, and have a right to take other peoples money because some politician or political group put it in their heads that thinking that way was morally right and feasible.  It's not.

 

Ok cool, I agree, sort of.

 

I don't want to pay for the military.  Should that be my right?  According to your post it is.  After all it is my money.  What if me and 150 million other people didn't want our money to go to the military.  What then?

 

 

I'm not proposing anything in this thread.  I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in saying taking money from people to provide health is wrong, but taking money from people to provide military protection isn't.  In both instances, you're taking money by force without asking.  Why is one ok, but the other isn't?

There is an organization called CATO that answers all these questions.

There was a time when our military was paid for not by tax dollars but by a government that got its money through other means, such as tariffs.  It was a time when we weren't the "saviors of the world".  We didn't stick our nose in places that it didn't belong.  We let other nations make their own minds up, whether they were making a mistake or not.  We didn't need a huge military that was spread out all over the world and cost billions of dollars.

It might sound like an isolationist attitude, but it's not.  Instead of forcing our ideas on others, we live our lives as an example.  This will influence others and show them how our way is the best and most successful.  And we can have a scaled down military that is affordable by other means than direct taxation of America's workers.

Well, then I guess I'm a "snob". 

I'm not sure I like this guys articles so much.  Seemed more like an attack piece if you ask me.

I hate PvP, personally.  I can't stand the PvP community (in general).

If it's a game that promotes team work, like DAoC was, then I'm cool with that.  I had a lot of fun in that game (even though the community seems to have taken a nose dive now).

There's just this group of players that seem like they had a little too much of an illegal drug called meth pushed into their brains.

Originally posted by cosy

imo this is relevant for this thread

 

Then if you believe that, go start a charity foundation to pick up the slack for these people.

My God, what has happened in this country?  We have completely given up and believe any problem that comes along is instantly a problem the government has to solve.  We've taken all manner of self-responsibility and pushed it off onto an organization that is inefficient, immoral, corrupt, power hungry, and anything but interested in the peoples well being.

Do you volunteer at all?  Do you get out and try to make a difference?  Or is your idea of "success" how much money you make and spend while you leave all that "dirty" work up to others.  Namely the politicians in D.C.  Then you feel warranted to come here and complain because nothing is being done correctly?

And I'm not just ripping on you, I'm talking about all the people who have turned on the founding principles of this nation.  We were warned not to give up our freedoms and liberties over this "protection" and nanny state temptation.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Without the military who exactly is going to protect your healthcare or your way of life at all?  So you don't need people protecting the country?  Taking money to pay for people who choose NOT to work, are illegal and don't deserve a thing,  or have made no effort to be responsible financially in their life is QUITE different from a country not having a military to protect itself.   Were you being sarcastic or just incredibly stupid or naive?   

 

 

No, you just need to brush up on reading comprehension.  I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be a military, I was making a comparison between protection rights.  I don't know how much more I can simplify it.......I'll give it a shot.

 

If my tax dollars go into funding a military that is there to protect the lazy, the criminal, the evil, and flat out unconstructive citizens of the U.S., why isn't it ok for my Tax dollars to do the same, but on the medical front?

 

The military is needed because it protects the innocent and good citizens of the U.S.  Sure there are a bunch of people in the country who might not deserve that protection , but protecting them as well is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of the innocent.  Same should apply with health care.

 

It's just more screwing over the innocent to punish the guilty.  Which is a major theme in conservatism.  Punishing responsible drug users by making a substance illegal because some people can't control their habits, putting innocent people on death row , The Patriot Act, etc.

It's not all conservatives though Liberals do it as well.  Which makes you think conservatives would understand this concept considering anti-gun control is a major talking point.  One of the few that I actually agree with.

 

Why should you be taxed to take care of anyone?  Why should anyone have their minds manipulated from birth to believe that they are entitled to something that is someone else's?

I work, it's my money.  You work, it's your money.  You don't work, you get NO money.  But what we have is people who think they don't work, or work very little, and have a right to take other peoples money because some politician or political group put it in their heads that thinking that way was morally right and feasible.  It's not.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Why should my tax dollars go into paying some High School dropout GED who joins the military because he can't get any other job?  I don't want him protecting me, nor do I believe I need him to.  I'd much rather my money go to helping someone with medical expenses, because what's the point of the military protecting someone if they're too broke to enjoy the freedom because they had the misfortune of contracting a disease.

Why did you assume that I thought any of those were okay too?

I do not believe in an income tax, period.  For anything.  Taking my earnings at the barrel of a gun is stealing.  Whether it be a thug punk on the street or the thug punk backed by the feds.

An income tax is wage redistribution.  There's no other way of defining it.  And when the federal government knows they can redistribute wealth, then inevitably taxation becomes a tool to gain votes.  Whether it be a Republican or a Democrat doing it, they are going to use taxation to win votes.  And the losers are the working people, rich, poor, middle class or otherwise.

 

So do you support some massive sales tax instead of an income tax?  Because there is no way we could support our military without an income tax.

We couldn't support our military because of all the social programs we have in place!  Or as I like to realistically call them, unwarranted entitlements that have stripped away the will to succeed or try in this country. 

What I'm in support of is the federal government scaling back to exactly what it is supposed to do as outlined in the Constitution.  Everything else can be taken care of by the states.  If we went back to that model that was there from the beginning (instead of where we went and tried to fix something that wasn't broken), then we could easily find the expenses for a military in some other way.  Tariffs are a good starting point.  Then we could also even the playing field for our American manufacturing businesses to spring back up again as well.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

This makes complete sense to me. You pay taxes when you can afford to, i.e. when you buy things, not because you made money.

Additionally, you are refunded a certain % based on household size to account for basic necessities. I believe Boortz said monthly.

 

YAY!!!  Another Boortz fan.  I love Neal!

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by gnomexxx

I think the challenge lately should really be, "Convince me that you actually believe in the deity you profess to believe in."  Because I see a whole lot of people calling themselves this or that and not living up to their religions tenets one bit.  Hell, most of them don't even really know what their religions tenets even are.

I used to follow my parents to church.  I did it mostly out of respect for them.  Then I started getting old enough to understand what the consequences are in other peoples actions.  I also started getting old enough to realize that the people at that church weren't acting like that book told them their creator wanted them to act.  They were mostly doing the exact opposite and still feeling redeemed.

My dad started realizing it too.  And the proudest I ever was of my dad was the day he stood up and told the church that they were mostly full of sh*t.  I cried when he did that because he suddenly became even more awesome to me. 

Why don't you call out the people who don't follow the "tenets" of there religion.  Or perhaps you just vomiting out words with no basis behind them?

"Vomit out words"?  Such hostility.  LOL! 

There is an option on this site where you can go back and see earlier posts from people.  You can see all the stuff I wrote. 

Just curious, can you make yourself "vomit out words"?  Like when people stick their fingers on the back of their throats to make themselves gag. 

I think the challenge lately should really be, "Convince me that you actually believe in the deity you profess to believe in."  Because I see a whole lot of people calling themselves this or that and not living up to their religions tenets one bit.  Hell, most of them don't even really know what their religions tenets even are.

I used to follow my parents to church.  I did it mostly out of respect for them.  Then I started getting old enough to understand what the consequences are in other peoples actions.  I also started getting old enough to realize that the people at that church weren't acting like that book told them their creator wanted them to act.  They were mostly doing the exact opposite and still feeling redeemed.

My dad started realizing it too.  And the proudest I ever was of my dad was the day he stood up and told the church that they were mostly full of sh*t.  I cried when he did that because he suddenly became even more awesome to me. 

Wasn't all this taken care of when they said any power not given to the federal government is to be given to the states?  The answer was given to us at the Constitutions conception.  Why did we go and try to fix something that wasn't broken?

If people don't like how one state decides to do things, then they pick their unhappy butt up and move to a state that suits them better.  It works.  But we don't do that.

Instead we have federal taxation which in turn gets politicians all giddy because they can steal and use the money to try to get votes.  Then you get crazy stuff like one marriage recognized over another or one religion recognized over another.  All the things that we were completely warned would happen when we started handing over our civil liberties to the federal government.

They warned us.  They told us this would happen.  It's happening, and we're acting like we're still beyond it. 

Originally posted by Laiina

Stossel (part 1 of 6) on the failure of education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2CR31MHUok

I think teachers unions should be outlawed.

See, again I'm not sure this is the whole story though.

Would we need the unions if there were no such thing as government schools?  I think the unions were a response to the federal government. 

It all goes back to this simple and always true statement; if you give the federal government power they will use it to gain more, and more, and more power.  It is an insatiable institution.  When we turned our kids education (or should I say choice to be educated) over to the feds that's when things got ugly.

I'm not defending unions.  I have seen them make some very selfish decisions.  But, can you see where they started from when it came to teachers?  It was their way of standing up to the government.  Did it get out of control, yeah it did.  But if you outlaw teacher unions in the public schools, then how is the federal government going to interpret that?  What are they going to do when there is no one to stand up to them?  You think the teacher turn over rate is high now, ooooooh just wait until the unions are gone.  Do you think the federal government will see teachers unions go away and say, "Oh, thank goodness now we can really start focusing on the kids."?  NO WAY! 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I do see where you're coming from.  But this cyclical problem is not going to go away until the power of both the federal government AND the unions is taken away.  If you create a vacuum on one side then the other side is just going to expand to fill that void.  The only solution is to realize that public schools and forcing kids to attend is an out and out violation of civil liberties.  And our country is supposed to be based on absolute civil liberties.  We've lost sight of that and now that is why all these problems are cropping up.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I remember seeing what al my HS teacher's made on a website that makes it public.  It was astounding.  There were Gym teachers making over $100k a year.  Any teacher who had been there for 10 years was making at least 60-70.

Granted, my public school routinely kicked the crap out of every private school in the state in test scores.  Which is one of the many reasons I believe the hate for the public schools system is just more irrational fear of the government rather than actual logic.  There are plenty of studies out there showing that there is not much of a difference in performance.

Plus you have to account for the fact that income level has a lot to do with intelligence and performance.  If you have some rich kid who was pampered and had all the learning materials, pre-school, etc. and then goes to a private school, of course he is probably going to outperform the kid who's dad ran out of them and mom makes minimum wage.

A teacher of 10 years making 60-70k?  That sounds like nothing to me.  I would think they deserve more than that for putting up with kids crap for that long.  Especially when a lot of them have a masters degree or sometimes even greater.

Being a teacher is a highly under paid job.  At least for the ones who are there out of passion.  I could never do it, I know I couldn't.  Because the second I was shown disrespect from one of the little turds and then had no one there to back me up on doing anything about it, I would have to leave out of anger. 

Public schools can't turn kids away, so the teachers who are there are nothing short of miracle workers in my book.  And they deserve a lot more than what they get.

But honestly, 70k is nothing.  Not to sound cocky, but I make more than that just from turning over car parts and refurbishing old classics.

 

A person is worth what the market says they are worth.  Public school teachers get paid out of the communities' tax dollars, private school teachers get paid out of the tuition students have to pay to attend that school.  If you raise teachers' salaries, that means you either have to raise taxes for public school teachers or raise tuition for private school teachers.  If the community and/or parents are willing to pay more for the services, then the market has deemed that teachers are worth more.

And I say that as one whose parents were both teachers.

I'm not totally sure that is the whole story though.

There is a demand to get into a private school as a teacher.  So I think that is why the pay is so low in private schools.  It's almost like upside down economics.  Actually, I think that the fact that there are schools paid for by tax payers turns that whole economic model upside down.  There is no competition.

If there were only private schools, then there would be a shortage of GOOD teachers to fill the spots and I think that teacher pay would then go up a lot.  But as long as you've got tax payer schools in the equation it's like throwing a hit of LSD into the formula.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I remember seeing what al my HS teacher's made on a website that makes it public.  It was astounding.  There were Gym teachers making over $100k a year.  Any teacher who had been there for 10 years was making at least 60-70.

Granted, my public school routinely kicked the crap out of every private school in the state in test scores.  Which is one of the many reasons I believe the hate for the public schools system is just more irrational fear of the government rather than actual logic.  There are plenty of studies out there showing that there is not much of a difference in performance.

Plus you have to account for the fact that income level has a lot to do with intelligence and performance.  If you have some rich kid who was pampered and had all the learning materials, pre-school, etc. and then goes to a private school, of course he is probably going to outperform the kid who's dad ran out of them and mom makes minimum wage.

 

 

A teacher of 10 years making 60-70k?  That sounds like nothing to me.  I would think they deserve more than that for putting up with kids crap for that long.  Especially when a lot of them have a masters degree or sometimes even greater.

Being a teacher is a highly under paid job.  At least for the ones who are there out of passion.  I could never do it, I know I couldn't.  Because the second I was shown disrespect from one of the little turds and then had no one there to back me up on doing anything about it, I would have to leave out of anger. 

Public schools can't turn kids away, so the teachers who are there are nothing short of miracle workers in my book.  And they deserve a lot more than what they get.

But honestly, 70k is nothing.  Not to sound cocky, but I make more than that just from turning over car parts and refurbishing old classics.

 

Perhaps this is the Problem? If Schools could Reject kids and Bad teachers the good kids and Teachers could shine. If Parents arn't willing to Discipline their Kids and make them acceptable members of Society, then perhaps they should be forced out of the public school and parents forced to send them to Private / home school or even, *Gasp* Discipline their little terror.

This is what I've been saying all along.  Compulsory education is not going to work.  It isn't working now.  Public schools have become day care centers.  That's all they are.  And this is why the teacher turn over rate is so high.  You get people who want to be teachers, they get a job in public schools thinking they are going to make a difference, and they are beaten down when they learn that they spend most of their time on discipline issues.

If we are going to have public education (which I admit I also disagree with) then the schools need to be empowered to turn away students who don't want to be there or who's parents are organic walking trash heaps.

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Why should my tax dollars go into paying some High School dropout GED who joins the military because he can't get any other job?  I don't want him protecting me, nor do I believe I need him to.  I'd much rather my money go to helping someone with medical expenses, because what's the point of the military protecting someone if they're too broke to enjoy the freedom because they had the misfortune of contracting a disease.

Ask him how the gov runs the VA hospital,and you will understand why he feels the way he does about gov run intuitions.
 

 

Don't get me started.  Been through that system.  What a farce.  
I know EXACTLY where any person in the ghetto can get a job.  They'll hire you at the VA, just prove to them  you're breathing and you're in.

It's really more than that though.  I just don't want the federal government taking my money to do anything, because they aren't going to do it fair or with the peoples interests in mind.

If someone is caring and compassionate and wants to help the down on their luck folks, then I get that.  They should go start a charity and put their efforts into what their hearts believe.  But when the federal government gets involved, it becomes a war for votes and with that comes inequity.  And also inefficiency. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

 

 

Lines like this astound me.  Why is it ok for them to threaten you with prison if you don't give them money for the military, but not ok for healthcare?  Why is protection from other people a "right" but protection from disease not?

If you don't believe the government should take your money and give it to others, that's fine.  But you better be consistant in that view and not just cherry picking.

 

Why should my tax dollars go into paying some High School dropout GED who joins the military because he can't get any other job?  I don't want him protecting me, nor do I believe I need him to.  I'd much rather my money go to helping someone with medical expenses, because what's the point of the military protecting someone if they're too broke to enjoy the freedom because they had the misfortune of contracting a disease.

Why did you assume that I thought any of those were okay too?

I do not believe in an income tax, period.  For anything.  Taking my earnings at the barrel of a gun is stealing.  Whether it be a thug punk on the street or the thug punk backed by the feds.

An income tax is wage redistribution.  There's no other way of defining it.  And when the federal government knows they can redistribute wealth, then inevitably taxation becomes a tool to gain votes.  Whether it be a Republican or a Democrat doing it, they are going to use taxation to win votes.  And the losers are the working people, rich, poor, middle class or otherwise.

What about my right to not have my earnings forcefully taken from me to pay for other peoples doctor visits?

Look, if you think people should have some kind of support to help them pay for their medical bills, then go start a charity.  Take care of it yourself and try to get others behind you.  But don't use the federal government to come threaten me with prison if I don't give them my earnings so they can redistribute it for votes.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by gnomexxx

I wouldn't say this goes against Obama's goals.  I would say this goes against all of those who's goal is bigger government.  The past Republican president didn't show he was much different if any different.  I remember Bush saying he had to go against free market principles.  The all too familiar, "too big to fail" was a part of his presidency too.

The American people are getting ready to dump all of these big government fools out of office.  I think the tipping point has finally come and this is just the tip of the iceberg of the changes.  If this can happen in liberal Mass, then what is coming towards us in the future?  Bring it on!!!

I just really and truly hope that this is the beginning of a viable third party taking control of some major things in D.C.  If it's the Libertarian Party then I will be more than happy.  But just any change to show these two parties that we're sick of their like minded agendas is fine with me.

 

Let us pray....

Let me hear an AMEN brother.    

I wouldn't say this goes against Obama's goals.  I would say this goes against all of those who's goal is bigger government.  The past Republican president didn't show he was much different if any different.  I remember Bush saying he had to go against free market principles.  The all too familiar, "too big to fail" was a part of his presidency too.

The American people are getting ready to dump all of these big government fools out of office.  I think the tipping point has finally come and this is just the tip of the iceberg of the changes.  If this can happen in liberal Mass, then what is coming towards us in the future?  Bring it on!!!

I just really and truly hope that this is the beginning of a viable third party taking control of some major things in D.C.  If it's the Libertarian Party then I will be more than happy.  But just any change to show these two parties that we're sick of their like minded agendas is fine with me.