National healthcare moves forward. Three cheers for more govt continue.

[Guest grimel]

Leroy,

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe healthcare can be viewed in the same light as other for-profit businesses. I can live without an electric toothbrush or a new car, but if I'm told my kid will die without some medical procedure I can't afford while my rich neighbor is able to get the same thing for his kid....that's beyond the pale. Two nights ago on channel 4 I saw a middle aged man who'd had a successful heart transplant but could not afford the $2500 a month for medication to keep his body from rejecting the new heart. He said he'd be out of money in a month...then he'd die. The political truth is, the American people have had enough of these kinds of stories and will no longer tolerate a situation where if you're rich you live, and if you're poor with the same condition you die. We've lost our big auto companies because they can't compete with foreign companies who don't have to provide health care for their workers.

No, we lost our big auto companies because they have not been able to modernize production, the Fed makes absured requirements, and they are paying way too much to retired people.

My bottom line...if we are truly a Christian nation, we have an obligation to care for the poor and sick. Maybe Jesus was a "socialist" by your definition?

If you are going to bring religion into it and try to justify your desire to have me pay for your healthcare, at the VERY least, get the religion part right and understand what a "socialist" is. At no point did Jesus or any of his disciples say the government was supposed to take care of the sick and needy. He (and they) said for YOU to take care of the sick and needy. He also said they would always be with you. If you'll read the first few chapters of the Book of Acts you'll find the Apostles set up Deacons to look after the widows, orphans, and such. Note again, they didn't petition Rome to do a blasted thing. Also, note, the Christians of the day sold all they had and gave it to the Church (again, nothing about the Government) for further use.

[Guest grimel]

as long as you and your kids are healthy I guess, but as soon as you luse your job and insurance I guarantee you, you will look at this a little different.

these days people are very cold, with no compassion or and feelings for their countryman..one moment they will scream loud and bang in their chest about a patriotism

..sad world we live in these days, very sad ....some would fight for the right to own a full auto machinegun because that is "right" and at the same time will say that health care is not the "right"..... how is your full auto AK47 a necessity....? some people are either that stupid and ignorant or they are just flat out retarded...

Db

Well, 44m, I guess you don't understand rights and necessities. Something being a necessity doesn't make it a right (see food). Having a full auto AK-47 is a right (see US Constitution Am 2 and for further clarification for those who don't understand what that says see US v Miller). Having health insurance isn't a right (you can read the US Constitution some time and see if I might have somehow missed it).

Just so you know, Patriotism has nothing to do with helping someone who over bought their housing or lost their job. It (patriotism) is love of country.

As for your guarantee, don't quite your day job to take up prognostication. I've been poor without insurance a lot (amazingly with children and still managed to get healthcare and meds via long term payments and free meds from those nasty big pharma companies and Dr samples).

As for you last sentence, might want to reconsider what you call people when YOU can't figure out what the argument is about.

[Guest grimel]

A reminder for the Christians on this thread--

The Christian's Duty to the Poor

What follows here is a quotation of a part of a sermon that John Chrysostom, perhaps the greatest preacher of the early church gave on a portion of Hebrews and Mt. 5.2.

"'Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.'

...

How much worse than poverty are these things?" Surely the lose of all personal dignity is more humilitating than poverty.

John Chrysostom-- Homily on Hebrews 11.7-9.

Much non-relevant material deleted for brevity. AGAIN, note, even this late comer to the party didn't call for the GOVERNMENT TO DO a single thing. If you (as a Christian and there is just a "tad" more than charity to being a Christian) want to help those in need, fine, do it. Nothing stopping you. But, I do seem to recall something about thou shalt not steal. Might want to remember that when you are considering taking my money so you can give it to someone else.

[Guest grimel]

Leroy,

If behaving in a Christian way is an individual matter unrelated to government, why the desire of Christians to outlaw abortion? Why do Christians seek to have the 10 Commandments displayed in courthouses? Why do so many fundamentalist Christians seek public office?

Well, if you believe life begins at conception (and science says so for everything but people) then abortion is already outlawed seeing it is murder, but, that of course is too simple for most people to grasp. Why the 10 Commandments? Well, contrary to what liberal profs would have you believe, this nation was founded on Christian principles. Running for office? Why do so many secularists run for office (IOW, what does being a fundamentalist have to do with anything, bad strawman).

As we all know, it's possible to find passages in the bible to support both sides of most arguments,

No, what we know is it is possible to misquote and take out of context to bamboozle those too lazy/ignorant to read it for themself.

What so many refer disparagingly to as "socialism" these days is really more akin to the idea of "the commons." In colonial times when villages were established they would often have a central piece of land that was to be shared and used for the benefit of all for growing food, pasturing livestock, drawing water from a spring. There was a shared duty to maintain it, and rules for it's use so that it wouldn't be damaged, and no one person could use it to an unfair degree to the detriment of others. Technically it was a "government" entity, and some no doubt grumbled about having to help maintain it.

Man, would you PLEASE read a little history, just a little. The early settlements did just as you suggest to even greater degree. It was abandoned for free market capitalism when everyone nearly starved to death because socialist practices NEVER work. Those who produce eventually get tired of carrying everyone's sorry tail and STOP.

The point I'm getting to is, there are some things government can and should do to promote the general welfare, facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maintaining a military is one accepted by conservatives, maintaining an interstate highway system, controlling air traffic, insuring the safety of food and drugs, etc. I can't understand why people conflate things that reflect a fundamental concern for our fellow man (enabling people to get health care when they need it) with the evils of Soviet Communism..

It seems to be a highly irrational fear promoted by monied interests (drug and insurance companies in particular). If you "follow the money" it will lead you there, and to the NRA, and to Limbaugh, Hannity and company. My 2 cents...

First, enabling healthcare for those who need it isn't universal/socialist/governenment healthcare. Second, providing the common defense and interstate commerce are powers given to the Federal Gov by the US Constitution.

Finally, I can not understand why people want the federal government involved in their healthcare. The federal government can't get medicare/medicade to work so you want to give them ALL the healthcare industry to admistrate?? Are you out of your f'n minds? They can't get sterile sigmodoscopes (look up what it is used to do) in VA hospitals and you want them running your healthcare? We (the US) has the best healthcare system in the world (yes, it realy does everyplace else is bankrupt and broken or doesn't have functional healthcare). We have a system that works and has a FEW people with problems. Dismantling it, bankrupting the country, killing small business, tripling unemployment, and destroying the highest living standard in the world to ensure the masses have crap is insantity.

You don't believe the masses will have disfunctional crap? Then, pray tell, why is Congress and the President being exempted from the single payer system? If this new and "improved" healthcare bill is f'n awesome why are they making sure they don't have to use it? Is that a big enough CLUE this bill isn't about giving people "healthcare"?

[leroy]

I want to say that I have read with pride, awe, and hearty approval the wise observations of THORN and GRIMEL in regards to the issue of both Christian and governmental responsibilities. They are well said and capture in a direct way what i tried to point out by all my rambling. I spent way too much time going around the mulberry bush trying to convey the point. You both went to the heart of the problem. I want to thank both of you for being wise, direct, and thorough in your answers to those who believe that government ought to be everybody's nanny, and that socialism is somehow akin to Godliness. Again, thank you both for the most excellent dissertations. They are dead on target.

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

LEROY

[DavidCBaker]

Any honest place (even the liberal think tanks) that uses actual Census data. You can even view US Census data on your very own monitor. Be prepared to realize you've been lied to by Obama and the Dems.

If you ungin the numbers, the actual number of uninsured who don't choose to be uninsured is somewhere around 10 million. Not nearly as expensive to "fix" as making an entire new Fed Gov controlled health care screwup (isn't medicare/medicade and VA enough for one lifetime?).

I finally had a chance to look at it, and I believe you are correct on the number part. Thanks for the correction.

One thing I would ask, however, is that you not lump me in with the folks who want " an entire new Fed Gov controlled health care." I've repeatedly said I am NOT in favor of that. All I've said is that there is a problem, that I don't have the solution, and that some of the people without insurance are not deadbeats.

I think that's a fair position and if we are to arrive at a solution, the rigid and polarized views on this need to be reexamined.

My own belief is that government has a very limited role (yes, I've served in elected office). For years I've said that government should not incur any debt, and to whatever extent there are funds available, they should use them for these things, in order. In other words, until the first is adequate, they shouldn't go to the second:

Water

Fire

Safety

Court System

Sewer

Refuse

Consumer Safety

Healthcare Oversight

Veterans

Education

Natural Resources/Preservation

Professional Regulation

Business Regulation

Investment Attraction

Social Services

Tourism

If I had my way, "Veterans" would probably be the last thing on the list. Notice that healthcare funding isn't any where, nor is provision for the expense.

Edited July 18, 2009 by DavidCBaker

[BryanP]

My own belief is that government has a very limited role (yes, I've served in elected office). For years I've said that government should not incur any debt, and to whatever extent there are funds available, they should use them for these things, in order. In other words, until the first is adequate, they shouldn't go to the second:

Water

Fire

Safety

Court System

Sewer

Refuse

Consumer Safety

Healthcare Oversight

Veterans

Education

Natural Resources/Preservation

Professional Regulation

Business Regulation

Investment Attraction

Social Services

Tourism

Interesting list. Nowhere in that list do I see .gov running the military, which is in the constitution("provide for the common defense"), unlike the rest of your list.

[DavidCBaker]

Sorry--that's a bad cut/paste job on my part. It's implied with the "veterans" item, but I meant to put it first.

[Mike.357]

what bothers me the most is that Obama and his core supporters want this rushed though. he wants it on his desk now!

What is the harm in taking a few months to study it. Over 1000 pages and it passed in and out of committee in a matter of hours. What the heck.

The more someone pushes me to hurry the more I do not trust their motives.

[USMCJG]

what bothers me the most is that Obama and his core supporters want this rushed though. he wants it on his desk now!

What is the harm in taking a few months to study it. Over 1000 pages and it passed in and out of committee in a matter of hours. What the heck.

The more someone pushes me to hurry the more I do not trust their motives.

It's just like the stimulus package that was passed before it could possibly have even been read, much less understood.

[DavidCBaker]

Here's an interesting article, noting that health expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy, even though most of those filing had insurance:

Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were caused by health problems -- and 78% of those filers had insurance.

I don't know how accurate it is, but it's pretty interesting.

Source

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Yea, I guess you're right. SCREW THE POOR AND THE SICK! Let them and their children and their elderly suffer and die.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I completely agree, Ralph. I think the government should take care of me. I have been waiting for days for the Rear End Wiping Committee to show up.

Edited July 19, 2009 by SUNTZU

[Smith]

Yea, I guess you're right. SCREW THE POOR AND THE SICK! Let them and their children and their elderly suffer and die.

Such extremes are what cloud you judgment. Plus you assume the human spirit is one of defeat. I can point out countless examples that show adversity is what inspires greatness and invention. What we are doing is removing an essential part of the equation (adversity) that makes humanity great. In turn we have a generation that wants to feel no pain - massive rise in chemical dependency and it's negatives - a generation that can not cope with difficulties - massive rise in lawsuits, bankruptcies, mass shootings, crime - and a generation that looks to the government to "save" them from suffering. It is really a shame we have learned so little from our past and history.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Hey, isn't that what I said? Good post, Smith.

[Guest grimel]

Yea, I guess you're right. SCREW THE POOR AND THE SICK! Let them and their children and their elderly suffer and die.

Once again, you show an amazing inability to grasp a basic concept: it isn't the government's job to take care of anyone. If YOU want the elderly, poor, and sick taken care of - TAKE CARE OF THEM. Start a charity, organize your "Christian" church. But, do NOT try to have the government steal MY money from ME to do what YOU want done.

I'm getting the distinct feeling, unlike you blathering on about the government needing to do something patently unconstitutional, I'm out EVERY day helping the poor become not poor so, get off your high horse about how much you care and the Fed should steal from me and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM with YOUR money and time. Leave mine alone. I'm much more efficient with my money than the Fed ever dreamed of being.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

I want to say that I have read with pride, awe, and hearty approval the wise observations of THORN and GRIMEL in regards to the issue of both Christian and governmental responsibilities. They are well said and capture in a direct way what i tried to point out by all my rambling. I spent way too much time going around the mulberry bush trying to convey the point. You both went to the heart of the problem. I want to thank both of you for being wise, direct, and thorough in your answers to those who believe that government ought to be everybody's nanny, and that socialism is somehow akin to Godliness. Again, thank you both for the most excellent dissertations. They are dead on target.

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

LEROY

+1000

[ukerduker]

what bothers me the most is that Obama and his core supporters want this rushed though. he wants it on his desk now!

What is the harm in taking a few months to study it. Over 1000 pages and it passed in and out of committee in a matter of hours. What the heck.

The more someone pushes me to hurry the more I do not trust their motives.

I am with you on this issue of speed to pass everything and everything is an emergency. But to truly understand this, we need to delve into the conspiracy side of things. As we all know, this is verboten (forbidden)within the walls of TGO.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

<<Once again, you show an amazing inability to grasp a basic concept: it isn't the government's job to take care of anyone.>>

Yea...you're right. Let's get rid of social security and medicare so you can invest in Enron stock, and put 100G in your medical savings account to cover that 500G heart transplant you seem to need.

<<If YOU want the elderly, poor, and sick taken care of - TAKE CARE OF THEM. Start a charity, organize your "Christian" church>>.

I give to charity. Unfortunately if those in need had to depend solely on charities

people would be starving, but they deserve it right--it's all their fault. I used to think being a "Christian nation" meant we had to actually behave that way as a country. What a relief....thanks for enlighting me. Like I said, screw the poor.

<<But, do NOT try to have the government steal MY money from ME to do what YOU want done.>>

Someone wiser than you or me said "taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society." So, no more taxes. Anarchy would be fun! We'd finally get to play army for real with our AR15's. Whoopee!

<<I'm getting the distinct feeling, unlike you blathering on about the government needing to do something patently unconstitutional,>>

Grimel, you're some kind of man! Not only are you immune from financial or medical emergencies and concern for anyone but yourself, you're a constitutional scholar too!

<<I'm out EVERY day helping the poor become not poor so, get off your high horse about how much you care and the Fed should steal from me and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM with YOUR money and time. Leave mine alone. I'm much more efficient with my money than the Fed ever dreamed of being.>>

Damn! You're Mother Teresa AND Ayn Rand too! I'm truly impressed.

__________________

[Guest grimel]

what bothers me the most is that Obama and his core supporters want this rushed though. he wants it on his desk now!

What is the harm in taking a few months to study it. Over 1000 pages and it passed in and out of committee in a matter of hours. What the heck.

The more someone pushes me to hurry the more I do not trust their motives.

What bothers me the most is some people think somehow the Fed will do a good job managing health care for the entire country when they can't manage VA, medicare/medicade, and are opting themselves OUT of national health care.

One of my Iraq DAV friends just spent 5 hours in the ER (1 Dr and 3 support staff) while the Dr complained the guy next to him was b!tching about waiting 4hrs with chest pains and breathing constrictions.

Okay, people willing to let the gov steal from me to take care of them is pretty high on my list of bothers.

Yeah, trying to ram something through in less time than it would take for me to read it much less have any debate sets off so many alarms in my head I'm against it right away. If they were trying to give me a 50 cal MG, NIB Garand, NIB M21, and a brand new Wilson 5" CQB with a 50'x100' (built at their expense) barn for each gun loaded to the rafters with ammo I'd be against it wondering what was in the details that would screw me in the end.

[Guest grimel]

<<Once again, you show an amazing inability to grasp a basic concept: it isn't the government's job to take care of anyone.>>

Yea...you're right. Let's get rid of social security and medicare so you can invest in Enron stock, and put 100G in your medical savings account to cover that 500G heart transplant you seem to need.

Eliminating social (in)security and medicare/medicade would save a few billion a year allowing taxes to be reduced to a functional level allowing economy to grow and people to have $$ available. Not to mention, SS was NEVER intended to be what people used to retire. Finally, getting the fed out of healthcare and letting free market economics rule would result in huge cost savings for health care. As in the $100k in my savings account would cover the $75k heart transplant.

<<If YOU want the elderly, poor, and sick taken care of - TAKE CARE OF THEM. Start a charity, organize your "Christian" church>>.

I give to charity. Unfortunately if those in need had to depend solely on charities people would be starving, but they deserve it right--it's all their fault. I used to think being a "Christian nation" meant we had to actually behave that way as a country. What a relief....thanks for enlighting me. Like I said, screw the poor.

You really don't understand the written language do you? The Bible (see Christian nation references) at no point asks, requests, suggests in any manner the government does anything to help the sick and poor. It states YOU (and your fellow Christians) aid the poor/sick.

Since you state you give to charities, I'm sure you realize the private charities in this country feed/cloth/house more people per dollar spent than the Fed by an obscene margine. Imagine how much more people could give (contrary to popular belief the big producers are the big givers to charity) to charity AND grow the country's economy if they weren't being exessivley taxed to provide a grossly inefficient Fed goverenment's welfare plans?

I seem to recall a wise man once saying something along these lines: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

It's about time we started teaching people to fish.

<<But, do NOT try to have the government steal MY money from ME to do what YOU want done.>>

Someone wiser than you or me said "taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society." So, no more taxes. Anarchy would be fun! We'd finally get to play army for real with our AR15's. Whoopee!

AGAIN, you fail to grasp basic concepts. YOU want the government to take MY money to pay for some charity work YOU want done. Work which the fed government has zero Constitutional authority to do. The taxes refered to by the wiser man to which you refer are to cover the essentials of government.

A wise man once said, the government which governs least governs best.

<<I'm getting the distinct feeling, unlike you blathering on about the government needing to do something patently unconstitutional,>>

Grimel, you're some kind of man! Not only are you immune from financial or medical emergencies and concern for anyone but yourself, you're a constitutional scholar too!

Don't need to be a constitutional scholar. All I need is the ability to read and comprehend. The US Constitution is a short document with everything the US Federal government is allowed (and required) to do spelled out.

<<I'm out EVERY day helping the poor become not poor so, get off your high horse about how much you care and the Fed should steal from me and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM with YOUR money and time. Leave mine alone. I'm much more efficient with my money than the Fed ever dreamed of being.>>

Damn! You're Mother Teresa AND Ayn Rand too! I'm truly impressed

No Mother Teresa gave aid and comfort to the poor. She didn't help them become not poor. That's a "slight" difference.

As for Any Rand, we as a country would be much better off following her ideas than the current slide into following Karl Marx.

===

I'm not sure why you are having trouble understanding the basic premise of what the Federal Government is allowed to do:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

From the US Constitution websites dictionary so I don't have to correct your next comment.

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Just to be sure you have all the needed information, since your idea of the fed taking care of everyone isn't in the above list look at this part:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is about as clear as it gets.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being

Grimel my lad, thanks for providing more evidence for my case. "...provide for the common defense and general WELFARE (see your definition above) of the United States." Now I can see how your mind works....your reply will no doubt contend that it mentions nothing about the PEOPLE of the United States.

<<Eliminating social (in)security and medicare/medicade would save a few billion a year allowing taxes to be reduced to a functional level allowing economy to grow and people to have $$ available. Not to mention, SS was NEVER intended to be what people used to retire.>>

Like I said..."Screw the Poor"--the conservative mantra. The poor aren't heavily taxed so the amount of $$ they'd have available would be negligable.

That's a pretty good solution to poverty though....let 'em starve and die--problem solved. Praise the Lord.

<< Finally, getting the fed out of healthcare and letting free market economics rule would result in huge cost savings for health care. As in the $100k in my savings account would cover the $75k heart transplant.>>

That's a novel take....the problem with healthcare is too much regulation?

That's really out there. Too much regulation is why they're able to increase premiums 20%+ a year, exclude pre-existing conditions, and drop you if you get sick?

<<You really don't understand the written language do you?>>

This from the guy who doesn't know what "promote the general welfare" means! HA.

<<The Bible (see Christian nation references) at no point asks, requests, suggests in any manner the government does anything to help the sick and poor. It states YOU (and your fellow Christians) aid the poor/sick. >>

The bible does say "render unto Caesar"....in other words, pay your damned taxes and don't bitch about it! Maybe Caeser will help the sick and poor....

<<Since you state you give to charities, I'm sure you realize the private charities in this country feed/cloth/house more people per dollar spent than the Fed by an obscene margine.>>

Care to cite a reputable source for this factoid. The fact remains, without government assistance some people would starve, and not all of them deserve to.

<< Imagine how much more people could give (contrary to popular belief the big producers are the big givers to charity) to charity AND grow the country's economy if they weren't being exessivley taxed to provide a grossly inefficient Fed goverenment's welfare plans?>>

We tried that for a long time pre-SS, welfare, Medicare...didn't work too well. Since the Bush tax cuts the big producers have done a wonderful job of growing the economy--of China. Question--what was the top tax rate during the 1950's, the most prosperous decade in our history...when the great American middle-class was created?

<<I seem to recall a wise man once saying something along these lines: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.>>

So you favor government subsidies for college education? .

<<AGAIN, you fail to grasp basic concepts. YOU want the government to take MY money to pay for some charity work YOU want done.>>

I think you should be allowed to keep every cent you make that wasn't facilitated by the government through the defense of the nation, the interstate highway system, public education, regulation of commerce, food and drugs, law enforcement , and every cent that wasn't spent on you by a welfare recipient, government employee...every cent that wasn't put in the economy through some government action or program. No man is an island my friend.

<<Work which the fed government has zero Constitutional authority to do. The taxes refered to by the wiser man to which you refer are to cover the essentials of government.>>

...like promoting the general welfare.

<<A wise man once said, the government which governs least governs best.>>

Some other wise man said "Republicans campaign on the premise that government can't do anything right, and when they get elected they prove it."

<<Don't need to be a constitutional scholar. All I need is the ability to read and comprehend. The US Constitution is a short document with everything the US Federal government is allowed (and required) to do spelled out.>>

...like "promote the general welfare."

<<

No Mother Teresa gave aid and comfort to the poor. She didn't help them become not poor. That's a "slight" difference.>>

True. So how do you help them become not poor?

<<As for Any Rand, we as a country would be much better off following her ideas than the current slide into following Karl Marx.>>

What about her militant atheism? Conservatives never mention that.

You apparently didn't see Rand disciple Alan Greenspan's testimony before congress last October in which he admitted her ideas had failed and helped produce the economic collapse.

[Mike.357]

Ralph Briscoe that is a bunch of bull****.

No one is entitled to anything, certainly not health insurance and certainly not on someone elses dime.

The gov't is not in place to hand hold and be our nanny, though it seems you believe that is so.

if you want something, work for it. If you are poor and sick, well I am sorry but you are not entitled to health care paid for by me.

Old people get sick and die, that is a fact of life. It has gone on forever.

I pay into SS, there damn well better be something there for me when I apply.

People on the gov't tit pay nothing, therefore they deserve nothing.

Thats the long and short of it.

[tntnixon]

Here's the deal, Ralph, for whatever reason, has chosen to opine his liberal bent on one of the most conservative websites available. He probably goes on the NAACP website and spews racist epithets.

There is a ceratin percentage of our polpulation that enjoy angering the rest of the population. That's how they gain personal fulfillment. Ralph appears to be one of them.

So rather than getting on "The Daily Kos", he came here. And the membership has given him plenty of enjoyment similar to the way serial killers get enjoyment from hearing the cries of little girls.

That being said, the best way to shut this crap up is to ignore it.

A lot of smart and presumably busy people have wasted an inordinate amount of time on him.

Furthermore I would suggest to the moderator to remove him from our roles.

[Guest nofearracer]

Heres a novel idea, why dont we funnel all that money that we send out every year as "foriegn aid", and use it for the "freebie crowd". Then maybe some small companies will be able to keep their doors open, and not be forced to close by a bunch of socialist crap.