Um, I know technology is getting cheaper by the year.. But everyone here seems 'wealthy' enough to afford luxuries like..Tada, the internet..Tada, the computer the post on..
So why would you need a tax break? Lowering taxes (right now atleast) is the anthem of those who are genuinely disgruntled over working and not getting everything 'due'
to them. But ask yourself, wouild you BE here..Would there BE a joeuser.com..Would your JOB be there..if it WASN'T for the established federal government that we have.
The same type of establishment that requires us to "pitch in" and do our own part into fueling this country we live in. That's what your taxes are. DOING YOUR PART.
But I can see how people wanna worm out of that responsibility.. "I hate the president"..or "I hate being probed by aliens"..All good reasons to not want to pay your end of the bill. You live, eat, breathe, defecate, sleep, play, work, masturbate..IN YOUR COUNTRY. You expect it to be free? Completely? Everyone wants something for nothing.
I'm not saying there are no wrongs with the federal government..But remember: It is ran by Human Beings.. you know, the same race you belong to.
Think about things before you whine about it..or atleast try to.

Lunaticus, who are you addressing that to? If it's to me my answer is simple: Free pills are not a god given right. Providing free pills does not help make this country great. It is just another example of one group of people leeching off another group of people.

What has made this country so successful has been:
1) Freedom.
2) A stable government.
3) A large single free market
4) A reasonably low tax rate to provide incentives for people to take chances.
5) A good civil society
6) A reasonably uncorrupt civil service system (including police, courts, etc.)

Things that do damage to the system is syphoning off from one group to give to another. It harms us in many ways such as weakening the family structure for one thing. The most efficient way for the elderly to be taken care of is a strong family unit.

I'm sorry but I just don't look at the federal government as mommy and daddy. I have a mom and dad already thank you.

Would you whine if you had to pay 54% higher rates for your cable TV, electricity, water, etc than the person next door? I bet you would. What is the difference between that and making any part of our society pay 54% of the taxes when they are getting the same, if not less service in return.

Noone is arguing not doing their part. We are arguing having to do our part and a bunch of other peoples' part as well.

Think about that!

Drug benefit
I have to say that a drug benefit is a horrable idea and I'm disappointed (not suprised) that one passed through the all-republican leadership. This is another entitlement that will continue to grow and taker more and more tax dollars and it won't go away. Baby-boomers are getting close to retirement age and there are a lot of them, the cost is going to be absurd. Republicans preach every election about smaller government but they have yet to shrink it, and with full control there is no reason they can't keep their word.

Taxes on the rich and poor

The rich really do pay their fair share of taxes and then some. The problem with the system is the lack of balance. Two people both making 100k per year could be paying a very different % of their income based on things that shouldn't matter. Why do we get a big tax brake for having kids? This is a choice, plan and prepare. If people don't get a tax break for this everybody's taxes could be lower. Paying interest on a house lowers taxes? What if i want to pay off my house early, or I need to live in an appartment because I move a lot (or just prefer it). Why should I pay higher taxes than some other guys that buys a house far beyond his means? The fact is there are some crummy spots to be in where you can pay a higher % of taxes that everybody else because you don't fit into a demographic politicans want to cator to. Again, republicans are not doing anything to fix this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a democrat by any means. I would consider myself a realistic libertarian. Bush is not doing well among fiscal consertives and that could hurt him if the fiscal consertives don't see any real difference between him and the democrat.

I would hope so given that one of the primary reasons for the revolution in the first place was taxes

Yes, those terribly inconvenient taxes that the American Colonists had to pay, which were, by the by, principly on things that the wealthy bought, also they were significantly less than our British cousins were paying. Why do you think the British parliament thought we were a bunch of whiners. Also. sales taxes, if applied universally, that is to say on necessities like food and clothing, have a greater impact on the poor, since they spend a greater percentage of their income on those things than the rich. Though I am in favor of a sales tax on luxury items.

Your post-facto declaration that you would have remained a loyalist in the American revolution doesn't change any historical facts.

JillUser, I think I do pay more than my neighbors. I use more

No, Brad..that wasn't addressed at you. That was addressed to those who are anti-you, lord Satan of the Gerbilmonsters. (Eh, it's late)

Ah ok. My bad.

It is amazing how many people out there want to rely on the government to take care of them. And usually it's these same people who are out there protesting that the government is out to take away their rights.

The government will take away your freedom if you let it. The best way to keep the government from taking away your freedom is to be self-reliant and not ask the government to do things that we can do for ourselves.

Reply By: Brad Wardell Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2004
My parents had their house paid for and a reasonable pension, when they retired. My mother did not expect to live until she is eighty nine. Why shouldn't those of us who are well off help out our elders.


More to the point, why can't you help your parents? Why thrust that on society?

I would like to say that when it all said and done what happens when you CAN'T afford to pay for that health care? What happens when you can not take care of your parents?

What happans if you don't have the money to take care of yourself?


I would like to here the answers to that. If we are not trying to at least help out then what exactly happens to those who can not afford to have? (For what ever reasons)

What type of society will there be? A perfect one because everyone will know what is at stake?



I might agree that it is not fair that rich people pay most of the taxes... but I can also say that its not fair that poor people can't afford to eat. All this unfairness makes me want to not be rich...

Thanks for the link. I'll check out the views there. All the discussion misses some historical points of premise. I would recommend the review of the "Federal Reserve Act", the work of Bill Cooper on the I.R.S. and Federal taxation history, and reasonings of Congress for creation of the minimum wage. I am sure you have to oppose the minimum wage as well, believing the market should determine wage levels, correct? Now if we have 20 million ILLEGAL Aliens (note the word ILLEGAL) willing to take American jobs IF Bush let's them become LEGAL Aliens by it, what does this do to American wage pressures? WHY BRAD?
The fact is we don't live in a Democracy, or even a representative Democracy. Right now, Bush is introducing a plan to eliminate overtime pay for returning veterans now serving in Iraq and other theatres. Is it because we demand this of our Government? Do you support this? Then who did want it and why? The "entities" our Government serves want it, the 'Corporations'. Whether run by a Khan, King or a Kerry, all government has always IMPOSED its rule on the people not sought their consent in Democratic manner. It is for this reason We the People are reduced to having to debate amongst ourselves whether or not we can all have access to medical care, etc. There was actually a time when the Un(Bush thinks it's IN)-alienable Right to life ( as in health care for all humans of our Country who NEED help sustaining their physical life), liberty (as in right to be free to work and decide how our moneys are spent), and the pursuit of Happiness meant something to Americans. Franklin never thought of profit in organizing a fire station, Dr. Rush in treating the ill. These were fundamental to a civilized society and were virtuous to have, not even open to debate as to value to the society in any public circle. We've strayed if this is our debate today.
There is a lot to this matter which is assumedn and subsumed by the post and leading to this debate, such as fundamental flaws to the system of economics we live under today. The minimum wage would have no use or reason for being if the 'system' allowed the employees, whose productivity allows for the owner to purchase machines to assist labor, to enjoy the benefits of their productivity. Because it does not, the 'owner' will use the machine to lay off the very people who made the acquisition possible. I've heard Rush Limbaugh argue for 'technocracy' using a common claim that the new machine takes labor to create, so the introduction of machines to lay off employees and concentrate more wealth per unit produced in the owner, is therefor good as it 'creates' jobs. This is absurd and self-contradictory.
Ask, 'Why was the machine created?' To increase unit output and decrease cost per unit. Now if this is achieved there is only one formula to use right? What is prime factor in cost per unit element? LABOR(as in human employee). Takes less money in labor expense to effect the unit factor on this side of the formula. The machine is created to decrease cost in wages to humans. Does the machine then get the money? NO, the owner does. How did he get the money for it? LABOR, and enough Productive labor to create the profit to allow for the expenditure. This is a fatal flaw of the system. It does not reward production but insidiously uses productive labor to reward the owner with all the proceeds of others labor.
The moneys saved and raised by profit due to improved labor of employees, in a utopian society, would go to the employees who made it. Such a system would eventually have a class of millions who have that highest and final goal of all labor, LEISURE. A 30 hour work week would be natural, the a 25 hour work week, etc. Leisure is the highest state a Society can achieve and should be the goal of any forward Society. In leisure, people have time to think, read, compose, invent, rest, raise, inspire. Its attainment would not take away from the economy, but add to it more and more. We have no leisure (well the owners do) to achieve higher and higher ideals and goals because the system now punishes production and the very people who make companies successful.
Believe me, the logic of the present system is the pragmatism that is skewing the true objectives of the economy of this Nation and making it sound completely American to lay off Americans and hire slaves in dictatorships, qua NAFTA and GATT. Go back and read the mechanisms that have created the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve (neither Federal nor a reserve, having NO relation to our government, yet we are told to send our checks to them, not the Government [this is deep but you'll understand how this glaring faact came into existence once you review it) Act, and the economic system that allows medical costs to be so high.
Consider how we live in a economic system that supposedly rewards efficiency that reduces unit cost and labor, yet also supports a sector that has had ONLY increases in its cost despite all the advances of technology and improved labor - the medical health sector. They do this because the system they are using is fundamentally flawed. We must not only seek health care for all Americans - and I consider this a virtuous undertaking, not a crime against anothers pocket-book - and a change in the essential application of economic theory to medicine as a whole. Right now, if you live in Mexico, you'll pay a tenth of what you'll pay for the same drug to save your life in America. WHY? It's a flawed system they are exploiting and which should not apply to medical care. It is allowing pharmaceutical companies to dictate the cost per pill to their salespeople - the physicians - based on income, not any formula of cost/labor.
The purpose of medicine is to heal, not profit on the pain and suffering of its Citizens. We must remove the incentive for money from the system and put it back to its proper role by - in this the 21st century - becoming proud to live in a Nation where ALL the people have a guarantee of LIFE as our forefathers intended it, and as we now must come to know it - as a value not a cost.
Finally, there is no way I accept that anyone who even said it, really would let a 80 year old lady or man of this Country die because their own children could not afford to care for them anymore. Such is more than un-American, it's cruel and un-civilized.
I once argued against a Mayor who decided he'd force a un-experienced out-of-town Afro/American to be Fire Chief of the City because he was minority and minorities should have more say in Governmnet affairs. While I agree there should not be racism in hiring, I never heard of a fireman pulling up to a house fire and asking if the residents were white or black before acting to save a life. It was an insult to the community to go outside and not hire from our own, because they earned it for service and experience, and not because they were one color and not another. The flaw was in the Mayor's thinking and racism, not the Firemen's. I have to think we, even those who have said otherwise in their postings here, would never withhold our hand to the sick and dying because it was not our responsibility. If I'm wrong to say this, I apologize, but the mark is not on me, for I have a basis upon which I hold my values, a context originating in fundamental knowledge of the why, how, and who's of my thoughts and conclusions. I have a basic premise not at odds with my fundamental values and political goals.

WA, if the government had a program to help those who couldn't take care of their elderly, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem lies with all of the people who chose not to take care of their own. They don't want to give up any amenities, not necessitties, amenities. And since when is it an American right to have prescription drugs paid for?

You talk about us not having a Democracy then say we need to remove the incentive for money. I think you have communism and democracy confused. If we make it so we just distribute everything "fairly", there will be no incentive for anyone to do any more than anyone else. It is a very basic concept. You talk about us needing to strive for more liesure time. Americans have plenty of liesure time. Look at how much time so many of us have to be here on JoeUser debating

Brad, I'm not declaring myself loyal to the British, I'm merely stating that the Revolutionary war was not about taxes.

I would like to say that when it all said and done what happens when you CAN'T afford to pay for that health care? What happens when you can not take care of your parents? What happans if you don't have the money to take care of yourself?

How many people don't have money to take care of themselves or their parents? Very very few. Every time I meet someone who claims they are poor they somehow manage to have a car, a house (rarely an apartment), cable, Internet, computer, well fed, and typically an out-of-state vacation per year.

But that's ultimately irrelevant - free pills are NOT an entitlement. They're not a right.  And very very few people truly can't afford it themselves. They just don't want to go without something else to pay for it.

I am sure you have to oppose the minimum wage as well, believing the market should determine wage levels, correct? Now if we have 20 million ILLEGAL Aliens (note the word ILLEGAL) willing to take American jobs IF Bush let's them become LEGAL Aliens by it, what does this do to American wage pressures? WHY BRAD?

I am a big believer in the rights of workers to organize. Unions were not made by the government. It wasn't minimum wage laws that made companies stop exploiting the workers. It was unions. Part of the free market.

Illegal aliens will push down the average wages. Hence one of many reasons why they are ILLEGAL.

Regarding how our government isn't a democracy and how it needs to get back to the principles of our founding fathers.  Yea, those were the days. When only white males who owned land could vote and there was no income tax. When elected officials were literally in the pocket of some rich individual.  Yea, that was democracy. Not like now.

Just a point: I don't plan to vote for Bush. So don't confuse me for a Bush supporter. I'm a conservative, not necessarily a died in the wool Republican.

My princples are pretty straight forward: Self-Reliance. Don't ask the government to do things for you. Everything the government touches becomes corrupt and ultimately robs people of their rights and dignity. The best solution for that is to keep them the hell away from our daily lives. And if you are convinced that something needs to be done by a tax funded entity, look to your local or state government.

Brad, I'm not declaring myself loyal to the British, I'm merely stating that the Revolutionary war was not about taxes.

You don't recall "Taxation without representation"? Boston Tea Party? Believe it or not, there are these things called history books. Here's a tip: Books with titles like "Lies my Teacher Told me" and "A People's history of the United States" are not history books (those are the only two books that bring up the revolutionary war that i've read that have tried to argue that it was really a war for rich people).