Velociworld

You show me a death panel and I’ll show you a big ol’ republican lie.

Gawd, but you're tedious, Mentos. We've seen your sort of fallacious arguments since the dawn of Communism. We already know you won't agree to any definition of a "death panel," unless it says "death panel" on the committee's door, and even then it will not convince you against your more-important Will. I think I'll let you continue to parse reality into something unrecognizable and live there comfortably with the gas man.

You can't even see yourself in Vman's jibe, how will you ever see the end coming?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Pay attention to which lines get applause. This is outright sadism.

Joan - yours would be a coherent response IF it was a rhetorically close call in the legislation. But it simply isn't.

Is Snopes objective enough for you -- http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

Gee Cincinnatus - do you really not recognize Irony when you hear it?

There is nothing about either the speech - nor the cheering - that advocates death panels; there is only ironic discomfort with the insolvency of the current system - which he is suggesting will inevitably lead to what he mentions.

The DNC Health plan is meant to avoid just this eventuality (and if you refuse to acknowledge this, then you are not engaging in good faith debate). Now - maybe it will fail - maybe it is bad policy - but it DOES NOT advocate death panels - and this clip does not support your assumption that it does.

V-Joan...y'all gotcha a real troll going on about his mints...I've got your back if need be.

Mint-boy doesn't understand, does he?

Stupid Juju.

I guess Mintosh works nights or doesn't work at all. Either way anyone who trusts any government that much can't be argued with.

You know what they say guys: You can't argue a Mintosh out of a position he didn't think himself into.

Arguing with a socialist is like trying to teach a newborn quantum physics.

Thanks Randy - I knew that eventually someone would realize they were on a loser when it cam to sayin the DNC health plan included Death Panels - and pull the old - "The DNC is turning us into a socialist state" canard out of their ass.

Well - for your enjoyment - here is a list of socialist countries acccording to that logic:

Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom

from http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

Kind of makes me wonder what company in the international community you would like to keep?

Are you honestly arguing that those are NOT socialist countries, at least to the extent that each has a cradle to grave socialist health rationing system?

The international relations red herring is cute, too.

Weak stick, boy. Weak stick.

Are you honestly arguing that those countries do not have cradle to the grave health rationing systems, known to rational and informed minds as socialism?

Cute international relations red herring, by the way.

Weak stick, boy. Weak stick.

Whoah! Two for the price of one!

I'm a giver, I am.

Randy - the right wing lunatic fringe has done everthing it can to invoke an image of Obama's stewardship as marching us inevitably towards socialism/communism - all the time conveniently forgetting that all nation states involve themselves in one way or another in various socialist enterprises. What is public education, for chrissakes.

Bush spent money on social welfare programs like a mad man - the fact that he didn't tax us to do it makes him no less a socialist, since he simply passed the bill onto future generations instead.

Have you ever looked at the tax scheme under Eisenhower (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php )? The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 91%! At the heart of the cold war! Under nixon 70% - under Reagan 50% - falling to 38%. Now - its 35%. Were all socialists NOW!!

One of the main things which seperates liberal western democracies from the likes of the former soviet union (asside from the sort of free elections which have now given Obama the opportunity to try to fix the spending profligacy of Bush) - is the DEGREE of commitment to socialist enterprises. I take it as a given that the issue isn't whether we should or shouldn't invest in SOME social welfare programs (only extreme radicals would deny the poor education, for instance) - but, rather, where we should draw the line.

Do you really see all these countires I listed as slouching inevitably towards communism - simply because they have drawn the line more generously than us? Was the U.S. in the years before Obama somehow the single liberal democracy left on earth? And now that Obama is in office - how the commies really won? Have all our former allies in standing up to the soviet union really gone off their rockers pink? Are you really so isolationist in your thinking - that you can't see that the balance could easily tip a little more towards how health care is practiced in Germany, England, and Ireland - without - horror of horrors - us becoming godless communists?

Mintosh, I think you're confused as to which system Robert Reich was talking about.

Sorry Cincinnatus - It's all quite clear. The speech was in 2007 - concerning a health care system virtually identical to what exists today. He is mocking it - saying that if business goes on as usual, its inevitable that hard choices will have to be made - and saying that no president is honest enough to admit that the system is so broke it either needs radical overhauling - or hard choices such as the ones he discusses will become common place. He is most certainly not endorsing euthanasia.

Nobody's seeing nuthin'. Move along.

But can we get a second witness to testify? Why, yes, we can!

Fix the damn link, Joanie!! Sheesh.

Ah, it's a pattern!

"What is public education, for chrissakes."

Well it was a clear case of FAIL for you, obviously. But only if education was the goal, which of course it never is for government. I've yet to see a clearer example indoctrination than you're providing.

"right wing lunatic fringe", "(only extreme radicals would deny the poor education, for instance)", "more generously" are all examples of premises I'm not willing to grant you.

From your perspective I'm sure everyone to the right of Mao looks like a right wing lunatic.

Nobody is denying the poor the right to an education, but you'll never have the right to steal to give them one, regardless of method you use to steal.

It's easy to be generous with other people's money, hell, your guilty conscience practically DEMANDS that you attempt the con so that no one will notice your thieving ways.

Are we done here, or do you have more drivel for me to deconstruct?

Joan: That is just appalling.

Joan - you really are suffering from a bad case of Obama Derangement syndrome. Seek help immediately.

Thousands of photo ops from the last campaign - and a single example of Obama not standing with his had over his heart during the national anthem proves his lack of patriotism? You REALLY need a lesson in what consititutes reasonable proof. (It couldn't be a momentary lack of focus during a long and rigorous campaign, now could it? Because that wouldn't fit your inital assumptions).

Put this side by side with him holding his hand over his heart for some diplomatic even in Russia - and it PROVES he's a closet commie? Your completely off the rails.

Randy – So – let me get this straight. You believe in public education for the poorest members of society – but only so long as no one steals to provide them with one. But dude - there simply will be no public education for the poorest members of society without disproportionate taxation (which you seem to believe to be stealing). Tell me – Randy – how would you pay for the education of the poorest members of society? Are you gonna “deconstruct” the money from thin air – just as you so magically deconstructed my position (nice little fantasy world you live in, dude).

When you finally realize that your position is incoherent – then we can talk about just where you would draw the line when it comes to social welfare programs such as public education.

My primary point – however – is that you can’t consistently call Obama a socialist unless you are also prepared to call Eisenhower, Nixon ,and even Bush socialists as well.

Mentos: more than one photo, you're just too lazy to click links (why there's a full video of his calculated lapse during the anthem) and too lazy to think your way out of a paper bag.

But enjoy your obeisance, it clearly is a path of peace and security for you.

.

Oooh my. Another photo (FYI Pamibe wasn't working earlier). Now I am convinced that he is a closet Muslim, Socialist, Fascist, Communist - and also, apparently, a veritable walking contradiction.

Actually - I have seen the video. He sings along. He claps? And you make a big deal about him not putting his hand on his heart? And this constitutes proof to you that he hates America?

So ok, Joan - let me get this straight. He is this calculating manchurian candidate - who calculates. . . what again? That it is in his best interest NOT to put his hand over his heart? Even with all the media present? To my thinking, that is most definitely NOT a very well calcuated moment.

I didn't think you'd have anything worth addressing.

Gawd, but my prescience amazes me sometimes!

So - then - Randy. I guess you don't have an answer as to how you would pay for this public education you seem to think is a good idea - other than disproportionate taxation? I thought so.

Go ahead - run and hide when the going gets tough. You damn socialist.

Dude, I don't even read your crap anymore.

Socialists aren't worth debating. I'm not sure they even qualify as human.

Hey, here's something that's tons more fun that debating some totalitarian leftard scumbag in a comments section!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNFRLrP014

You show me a death panel and I’ll show you a big ol’ republican lie.

Here. Healthy youngsters are given priority over at-risk seniors, by orders of the government. Old people are going to die by government writ. The exact semantics may be a matter of personal preference, but "death panel" is not inappropriate.

Now where is the big ol' lie?

B Moe - First off - this article regarding H1N1 has nothing to do with the health care plan proposed by the DNC. Second - this is only at the proposal stage. And Third - if you read the article you will see that there is a valid medical reason for the decision:

"People ages 65 and over, who are normally among the first to get seasonal flu shots, would be last in line for the new H1N1 shot, because their rates of infection have been far lower. One CDC study suggested that older people may have some immunity to the virus because they were exposed in their early years to H1N1 viruses that were similar to this new virus."

Now - the ugly truth nobody wants to talk about is that in any system where there are limited resources - such as the current health care system - some sort of rationing of those services is inevitable. That there are not enough H1N1 shots for everyone is extremely unfortunate - but that is a far cry from some grand conspiracy designed by the DNC to Euthanize old people, such as the way your spinning it here.

As I said before - maybe the DNC plan is bad policy. But you simply argue in bad faith when you accuse the DNC of promoting a plan which will systematize death panels (again, its hardly an issue of semantics when the legislation is actually very specifically against anything remotely like death panels --http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp ).

The ugly truth (continued) is that the expense of the current system (where insurance companies have so much say in determining health care costs) is such that - irregardless of the fact that there are no specific panels deciding who gets what medical treatment - rationing occurs by fiat. If medical expenses drop (as the DNC expects) - less rationing will be the inevitable result. What this means is that those arguing for the status quo are every bit as much invested in a system that rations health care as are the democrats (if not more so).

Nice try though, B. Moe. I will take all comers.

Now - the ugly truth nobody wants to talk about is that in any system where there are limited resources - such as the current health care system - some sort of rationing of those services is inevitable.

Dude, that is exactly what we have been talking about. The question is, who and how are they going to be rationed? Your plan is for it to be rationed by government. Government bureaucracies to be specific, and those bureaucracies, or committees, or panels, are going to be making life or death decisions.

So Death Panels is a perfectly apt descriptor.

Right now, whether I can get health care or not is determined by whether I can pay for it. I happen to be competent and responsible to enough to make sure that I can. If you can't manage that, that is your fucking problem, not mine.

Start trying, Mintosh.

Quit lying B MOe - what you have been talking about is a line item in The DNC plan which supposedly makes death panels for seniors mandatory. But there is no such line item - know matter how you read it.

If you want to talk about the various positives and negatives of whether it is preferable for money grubbing and all powerful corporations to be making hard choices - or whether you want bureaucratic and wasteful government to do so instead - we can have that conversation. But its a non-starter until you agree to a simple truth. There are no death panels called for in the DNC plan (and there never were).

As far as how competant and reasonable you are - what percentage of the 10% currently unemployed - do you think are so incompetant that they deserve to go uninsured (thanks a lot for the freefalling economy, George Bush).

So Mintosh, you want a way to pay for any and all government services without taxing people unfairly? Try the FairTax. It taxes consumption, but not all consumption, only over the amount considered necessary to provide for your needs up to the poverty line. Seems fair, you get to control how much tax you pay to the Federal Government, if you don't want to pay any more taxes, don't buy anything. Couldn't be easier. Of course, a mental midget like yourself couldn't possibly understand such a simple concept. You would probably respond with something along the lines of "but it would add 23% to the price of everything we buy, how is that fair?" If you took the time to research and understand the Bill, then you would know that by removing all federal income taxes, it removes 22% (+ or -) embedded taxes from all goods and services currently bought, which oddly enough evens everything out to where you don't pay any more for it. Another big bonus to it, you get to keep every penny you earn, nothing is taken out for federal taxes. And since most states (that still have income taxes) base their tax rates on federal income tax rates, with no federal income taxes, the states would probably be forced to quickly follow suit, and switch to a consumption tax as well. Now, I know you probably still don't understand the benefits of something like this, but you'll just have to trust me that I know what I'm talking about, and that this idea has been researched more than any other form of tax reform ever, and has been found to be the best option. Now, I hope you can at the very least, look at this with an open mind and maybe, just maybe do some research on the FairTax outside your normal places, because you'll find nothing buy lies there. Check the House Bill (HR-25), or FairTax.org or any number of other credible sources to find out info about it. Hope I didn't hurt your brain too much.

Quit lying B MOe - what you have been talking about is a line item in The DNC plan which supposedly makes death panels for seniors mandatory. But there is no such line item - know matter how you read it.

I have been talking about what you said in the first post, pinhead. There are government fucking "death panels" operating now, and an expansion of government health care is going to expand their scope. The fact Pelosi was smart enough not to call them "death panels" might fool you but some of us have a fucking clue.

I try to be civil, but I don't like being called a liar by some idiot arguing with the cartoons in his head.

As far as how competant and reasonable you are - what percentage of the 10% currently unemployed - do you think are so incompetant that they deserve to go uninsured...

The ones too lazy to get off the fucking couch and take a Mexican's job.

"The ones too lazy to get off the fucking couch and take a Mexican's job."

Yeah - because these are just the types of jobs that come with health insurance plans - and/or, which pay well enough to afford thousands of dollars a year out of pocket for same.

As to the other issue - if you are not suggesting that a line item in the DNC bill implies the following (see quote below), then I apologize (actually, I apologize in any case; with all the abuse thrown my way on this site, I forget who has and hasn't participated, and reviewing, I see you clearly haven't):

"On Page 425 of Obama's health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes... They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!!! And no, I am NOT KIDDING YOU! So those of you who voted for Obama have now put yourself and your own parents in dire straights... Congratulations"

From my experience - this is a common belief on the right - and one encouraged by the likes of Palin, Beck, and O'Reilley. So - then - do you denounce this as the fiction it is? Or not?

In any case, I still think it is extremely disengenuous to throw wild accusations around about hidden "death panels" in the DNC plan (such as V-man did in his original post), when the plan is at least intended in good faith (such that if it does operate as the DNC expects it to, there will be less economic pressure to bear- necessitating fewer hard decisions - then is currently the case). Sure - explain away about how you think that the system will get worse instead of better. But given that there isn't anything so untward as mandatory euthanasia counseling in the bill, blindly invoking hysteria by simply joining a chorus of nasayers chanting about death panels means you might just as well be inventing stuff that isn't really in the bill as well (just as so many of your peers have been doing).

I would also add, moreover, that implying that the DNC plan surreptitiously introduces something new into the health care system (ooh, not Death Panels!)- when in actual fact people die all the time as a consequence of HMO's, Insurance plans, and, yes, even Medicare deciding not to cover a particular medical procedure - is itself a hysterical form of politics which does nothing to advance debate.

He is this calculating manchurian candidate - who calculates

Yes, Mentos! NOW you get it. Very good. Now go show your paper to Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones (avowed Communists) so they can give it a red star!

So he explains away death panels by giving evidence that they will offer end of life counseling to seniors, to try and get them to consider suicide?

I would also add, moreover, that implying that the DNC plan surreptitiously introduces something new into the health care system (ooh, not Death Panels!)- when in actual fact people die all the time as a consequence of HMO's, Insurance plans, and, yes, even Medicare deciding not to cover a particular medical procedure...

I am not arguing that they are going to surreptitiously introduce anything. I am saying they already exist, as you agree above, and the Democrat plan would quite blatantly expand their power.

And I think V-man is quite capable of defending his own argument if he feels the need, he doesn't need my help. I am responding only to your first post on this thread, and I think you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

B Moe - actually - I did apologize in my post above. I should not have called you a liar. I hope you will understand theat the climate gets a little intense in here - and that I got carried away.

That said - despite our various agreements, I am bemused that you still insist that the term Death Panels is a fair one. My point is that in the current climate, it is not. And that unless people start using the term to also refer to all the various methods by which Insurance Companies, HMO's and Medicare deny coverage - then pulling the term out in the context of this debate is hyperbole, at best.

Now - from your previous post - it looks as if you think that "Death Panel" might be a fair descriptor to be throwing around at this particular juncture because you think that the democratic plan will "quite blatantly expand there power". I would like to hear more about this charge. What is your evidence for this?

Cody - Your post obfuscates on two points.

1.) The GOP talking point on the supposed Death Panels was that they were mandatory. They are not.

2.) You suggest that the optional counseling is intended to get seniors to consider suicide. However, there is nothing in the bill that supports your claim. Just this:

H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

In other words - it calls for EXPLANATIONS of everything from living wills and power of attorney (which is actually one way of prolonging care even in extreme situations, should that be your chocie) to hospice care (which involves the choices made in the final stages).

So Cody - if by Death Panels - you mean having the opportunity made available to have a wide range of issues related to advance care EXPLAINED to you - then I guess you can call this a death panel if you want to (although you are not engaged in civilized debate when you do.

But if you think the plan calls for mandatory meetings designed to talk you into comitting suicide -- you are misinformed.

My point is that in the current climate, it is not. And that unless people start using the term to also refer to all the various methods by which Insurance Companies, HMO's and Medicare deny coverage - then pulling the term out in the context of this debate is hyperbole, at best.

"All the various methods"

Do you understand what you said right there?

"All the various methods"

When you go to single payer, there won't be any various methods. You either get health care, or you die. With various methods, if one entity turns you down you still have options. When you lose your options, YOU LOSE YOUR FUCKING OPTIONS!

This isn't about hyperbole, its about having control of your own fucking life.

Why is it that when I ask anyone for specifics around here - they start foaming at the mouth?

Jeez, B Moe - Either there is something specific which ups the ante - making the Hyperbole of "Death Panels" newly legitmate - or there is not. If there is - you ought to be able to name that thing - and describe how it functions.

Moreover - if there is some means by which this new plan limits your options - you ought to be able to say what that thing is. Instead you misread something I say - and scream it ad nauseum. I was not referring to "all the various methods" you might turn to if one option turns you down. I would not refer to such a thing - because such things currently only exist for the wealthy. For the poor - nada. Even for the middle class - if your insurance turns you down - according to one of there numerous "various methods" they have in place to deny coverage (oh - there is the sense in which I was actually using those words) - for a liver transplant, You DIE! There are no options.

So, I'll admit, that I haven't read the bill, shouldn't be that big of an admission, considering it is a pretty fair bet that most of the congress hasn't either. Another thing they haven't read (or at the very least, don't understand) is the Constitution, but I digress. I was simply referring to your earlier post where you said that that was the purpose of the end of life counseling. I have read portions of the end of life counseling guide for the military, and that is in there. I can't imagine that the guidelines would change much just because the branch of government using it does.

As far as options for health care, I hate when people use that bs as a stick to try and force government run health care down my throat. We have the greatest health care system in the world. That didn't happen by mistake. Right now, if I can't afford my medicine, or get turned down by my insurance from it, there is a good chance that the pharmaceutical company that produces the medicine will work out a deal with me so that I can get the meds I need to survive. I'll agree that meds are expensive, but that probably has something to do with the cost of producing them. It isn't exactly cheap to do the research and get all the patents and approvals needed to bring a new drug to market.

I'm very curious about what you meant when you said I was missing it on two points, I never said anything, or assumed anything about the death panels being "mandatory." I actually never said anything about the GOP. I don't agree with just about anything they have done either, so don't just assume you know what you're talking about.

But since you opened it up, call them what you want, when you have a group of bureaucrats sitting around deciding what medicines will be covered, who will get what type of care (not necessarily on a individual basis, but on a group basis, ie the elderly, infants, people with asthma whatever), but at the same time saying that we have to have their coverage, and that it is illegal to go get any other type of coverage, the end results are the same. They become a death panel simply because they have the power to ration care. It has happened in every other country that has socialized medicine, and will happen here if we are forced into socialized medicine.

I have never asked anyone else to pay for my health insurance or health care, and I never will. I shouldn't be required to get health insurance if I don't want to, I'm young and reasonably healthy, it should be my choice, the government shouldn't have the power to dictate that by throwing me into jail if they decide that I willfully decided not to buy it. I have a huge problem with anyone that for whatever reason does not have health insurance using the police power of the government to force me to pay for them. The only person that has a right to anything that I earn is my wife, and I gave her that right, when I have children, they will be given that same right. I haven't given it to you or any of the other moochers in the country.

Sorry to get so long winded.

Ok Cody - back to the FairTax you propose.

I am not actively "looking" for "a way to pay for any and all government services without taxing people unfairly." My argument is quite simply that those who accuse the DNC of being socialists for increasing social welfare programs are being inconsistent if they don't also accuse Eisenhower and Nixon of the same - since taxation under them was significantly higher than anything the DNC has proposed.

My second point (the one you are picking up on in proposing the FairTax) is that unless you are prepared to do away with all public services for the poorest members of society (public education for the children of the unemployed, for instance) - then you (I don't mean you in particular, Cody, but am generalizing about all those on the right accusing Obama of being a socialist) are committed to redistributionist taxation - and by your own logic, a socialist. Unless - that is - you are prepared to admit that some amount of redistribution is inevitable, and clearly draw the line on where said redistribution becomes socialism (of course, nobody on the right is prepared to do that because it is likely to blow up in their faces - they would rather prevaricate and pretend that they are fully invested in rejecting any semblance of redistribution, when in fact they quite simply are not).

Which brings us to the FairTax you propose. Now – I have actually done you one better than your suggestion that I “do some research on the FairTax outside your normal places, because you'll find nothing buy lies there”; I have done some reading on the issue offered up through the Mises Institute, a libertarian organization committed to ending taxation entirely (and – consequently – an organization about as far outside my comfort zone as possible). And Lo and Behold – what do I find – but that one of their members accuses the FairTax of. . . wait for it. . . being unfairly redistributionist:

One of the reasons FairTax supporters claim that their tax is fair is that it has a flat rate that everyone would pay. But the FairTax is about as flat as it is fair. I already mentioned that the FairTax includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities. This "prebate" is based on the government poverty level and family size. Thus, although everyone would pay the same rate under the FairTax, the end result would be that some Americans would pay no taxes at all, some would have most of their taxes offset, and some would get more money back than they paid in taxes. This makes the FairTax an income redistribution scheme under the guise of tax reform. http://mises.org/story/3389

Now – I’m not here to debate about whether FairTax is more fair than the current system or not – my point is more simply that it IS redistributionist. Just as any plan will be which makes allowances for public education for the poorest members of society will be. And is – then – socialist according to the logic of all the talking heads screaming about Obama’s redistributionist socialism. All I am looking for is consistency.

You want consistency. I do advocate doing away with all government welfare programs, social programs, and every other kind of government program that exists. I think the federal government has grown increasingly too large over the last 220 or so years, and should be cut back to provide only the services intended by the founders. The government should not provide education, health care, regulate health insurance, or anything else. I think that, of all the government agencies that exist, the military, intelligence community and federal justice systems are about the only ones that have a purpose. Everything else should be handled by the states, as stated in the 10th Amendment. Now, obviously, I'm overly simplifying things here, but that's beside the point.

Now, on to the FairTax. I must commend you for doing some research outside your normal comfort zone. And you did bring up what could be considered a fair point on the surface of it. But you missed one huge part of it, it may still tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, as every viable tax does, but it is completely voluntary on the part of the rich. If they don't want to pay more taxes, they don't buy anything more than the bare necessities to live. If they don't mind paying more taxes, then they buy whatever they want and therefore pay more taxes. That's the beauty of it. If you want to pay more taxes you do, you may not consciously think of it as "wanting to pay more taxes," but by wanting to buy more things or more expensive things, that's what you're doing. That's the beauty of the prebate, I'll get my taxes back on the necessities needed to live, and then I choose whether I spend more than that. It puts the power squarely in the hands of the people, which scares the hell out of most people in government, right and left.

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." - Ronald Reagan

I think more people in the government need to understand this. This country was founded so that it belongs to "We the people."

So - then - you have no problem with a redistributionist tax - as long as its handled by the state? And then you mean to have public education funded at the state level? Or do you mean to do away with it entirely

If so - that would make you quite a nasty brute, dude. And hardly one at all in sympathy with the claim that "all men are created equal". I mean - would you really have no problem sticking it to kids who have the bad luck to be born to irresponsible parents? In your system - those born into wealth and privelege truly will be more equal than others.

Once again, you misunderstand me. I was afraid that would happen when I over simplified my position. At risk of doing the same again, I'm going to try and keep it simple.

I do not agree with any type of redistributive tax, at any level, but am smart enough to realize that with the type of government we have now that they must exist. That's what I was saying, I don't agree with the size or function that our government now takes. I was saying all government functions not related to national security, ect. should be handled by the states, as was the intent of our founding fathers.

As far as government education goes, yeah, I do believe it should be done away with completely, or at the very least completely over-hauled. I believe that it should be the people's responsibility/privilege to decide on their children's education. I don't believe that I should have to pick the location of my house so that my child can get into a better school, I believe that if they force me to pay taxes for schools, and I want to send my child to this government school over that one, then the taxes they force me to pay should follow my child to that school. If I decide that my child should go to private school, then that tax money should go to that school. I don't agree with the government being able to force me to pay for anyone else's education, health care, or anything else. If I want to help out my fellow man, I will donate to private charity. That's another thing the government has taken too large of a role in, being able to offer you a reward for donating to charity, but that is a whole other discussion.

I like reading Mints post. They help me poop in the morning.