My family has since moved from TX to CA.
Nearby gasoline Regular varies from $5.86 - $6.49 /gal.
Birth Control Price Hike: $$$ or More Abortions?
-
you didn’t say “demon-rat”…maybe you are growing up? :mrgreen:
I only use the term demon-rat or neonazi when someone refers to republicans as neocons or right wing religious reich.
-
I only use the term demon-rat or neonazi when someone refers to republicans as neocons or right wing religious reich.
sure…
-
The only reason I emphasized the aprty that passed the law is that there are folks on this board who think that the current Admin and the previous Republican Congress could do almost no wrong.
This story was simply a chance to illustrate that, despite the Republicans having been voted into office to end corruption, restore accountablility, etc, that the pay-offs to big business have not only continued, but accelerated.
These bills are a perfect example of Big Government patting us on the back and trying to make us feel good, while they grab our wallets with the other hand and empty it (and max out the credit cards)
-
isnt medicaid the problem in this article?
therefore, once again, its liberals who brought upon us another problem! :evil:
-
Yep, definetly a political discussion.
-
Yep, definetly a political discussion.
LOL.
I don’t think there is anything but these days… -
I put it in General because it effects private institutions, not just politics. But I guess it would fit in political too.
Anyway, Medicaid is not so much the problem as the free market being prohibited from working. We’re not talking only state universities that are hamstrung from bartering with pharmecutical companies to get better rates, but also pharmecutical companies are prohibited from even OFFERING the rates as well as students - again - taking it up the who-ha because of some dithering ID10T sitting in a climate controlled office and making decisions without the facts.
-
Yep, definetly a political discussion.Â
LOL.
I don’t think there is anything but these days… -
The more I observe, the more I am inclined toward heavily taxing abortion.
In a theological government, banning it would be fine, but we have representative govm’t where not everyone is of the same faith or values.
However, we should all be paying taxes. Those of us who are healthy most likely get medical care at some point of our lives. Healthy people can be more productive in the workplace. Productive workplaces here will make our country strong.
I am foremost a patriot and highly anti-communist. Friends of mine place great value on freedom.
The high cost of medical care is taking that freedom away.
For the senior set, they only have the freedom of healthy poverty, or a short unhealthy life.
The Ma-Gov that takes care of them is fiscally losing due to rapid retirements (income tax) and escalating expenses (MediCare, social security) by the baby boomers. The replacement workers are not as many and, as many are just starting out, have lower payscales. The lower income taxes will hurt our government, its programs, and the nation.As a nation, we do not want the birth rate to go down, because that is fewer workers, taxpayers, and leaders down the road.
The lower birth rates can be offset by immigration, by immigrants are not easily assimilated into our modern society.I think we should tax both… and let the revenues pay of the debts, maybe even build a surplus to Medicare and Social security.
We should also restrict payouts.I think a 3-tier SS payout method should favor Veterans, and non-deployed GI’s over lay civilians.
I think smoking should be used as screen for provision of medical care.
We can also use that to screen out immigrants, since smokers, on average are not as productive in the workforce.Basically, anything good, or bad, we should structure our taxing and govmt spending systems to encourage everyone here to be better citizens, with a goal of building a stronger USA.
-
Correct me if I’m wrong, Linkon, but if you draw that out further, you’d be in favor of taxing DINKs more heavily then traditional families, because they are financially more healthy and thus can “afford” more taxes? (DINKs = Double Income, No Kids)
I wouldn’t mind. A lot of DINK families happen to be very liberal (as in like to spend the government’s money on everything under the sun, probably because they have the time to think of ways to spend the government’s money) while traditional families need more funding from “richer” families for government run day camp, government run schools, government run clinics for children, etc.
-
Jen, you are not a moderate. Be proud and say what you are… remember that political test crap we all took? You were on the right if I recall well.
-
The more I observe, the more I am inclined toward heavily taxing abortion.
In a theological government, banning it would be fine, but we have representative govm’t where not everyone is of the same faith or values.
However, we should all be paying taxes. Those of us who are healthy most likely get medical care at some point of our lives. Healthy people can be more productive in the workplace. Productive workplaces here will make our country strong.
I am foremost a patriot and highly anti-communist. Friends of mine place great value on freedom.
The high cost of medical care is taking that freedom away.Â
For the senior set, they only have the freedom of healthy poverty, or a short unhealthy life.
The Ma-Gov that takes care of them is fiscally losing due to rapid retirements (income tax) and escalating expenses (MediCare, social security) by the baby boomers. The replacement workers are not as many and, as many are just starting out, have lower payscales. The lower income taxes will hurt our government, its programs, and the nation.As a nation, we do not want the birth rate to go down, because that is fewer workers, taxpayers, and leaders down the road.Â
The lower birth rates can be offset by immigration, by immigrants are not easily assimilated into our modern society.I think we should tax both… and let the revenues pay of the debts, maybe even build a surplus to Medicare and Social security.
We should also restrict payouts.ÂI think a 3-tier SS payout method should favor Veterans, and non-deployed GI’s over lay civilians.
I think smoking should be used as screen for provision of medical care.
We can also use that to screen out immigrants, since smokers, on average are not as productive in the workforce.Basically, anything good, or bad, we should structure our taxing and govmt spending systems to encourage everyone here to be better citizens, with a goal of building a stronger USA.
Why is the government in the business of providing health insurance or retirement support? (Social security)
What part of the constitution directs the federal government to do this?
-
My reading of the Constitution is that it is expressly PROHIBITED to the federal government.
-
And yet….
we have Medicare and Social Security.
Why?
Does it need to be a federal function?
Does it need to be a government function?
-
I think most folks know MY feelign on that one…
Article I, Section 8. That short list is ALL the powers the Federal Government has (with a caveat regarding the 14th Amendment that would still provide Federal oversight to insure non-discrimination by any state) -
The more I observe, the more I am inclined toward heavily taxing abortion.
In a theological government, banning it would be fine, but we have representative govm’t where not everyone is of the same faith or values.
However, we should all be paying taxes. Those of us who are healthy most likely get medical care at some point of our lives. Healthy people can be more productive in the workplace. Productive workplaces here will make our country strong.
I am foremost a patriot and highly anti-communist. Friends of mine place great value on freedom.
The high cost of medical care is taking that freedom away.Â
For the senior set, they only have the freedom of healthy poverty, or a short unhealthy life.
The Ma-Gov that takes care of them is fiscally losing due to rapid retirements (income tax) and escalating expenses (MediCare, social security) by the baby boomers. The replacement workers are not as many and, as many are just starting out, have lower payscales. The lower income taxes will hurt our government, its programs, and the nation.As a nation, we do not want the birth rate to go down, because that is fewer workers, taxpayers, and leaders down the road.Â
The lower birth rates can be offset by immigration, by immigrants are not easily assimilated into our modern society.I think we should tax both… and let the revenues pay of the debts, maybe even build a surplus to Medicare and Social security.
We should also restrict payouts.ÂI think a 3-tier SS payout method should favor Veterans, and non-deployed GI’s over lay civilians.
I think smoking should be used as screen for provision of medical care.
We can also use that to screen out immigrants, since smokers, on average are not as productive in the workforce.Basically, anything good, or bad, we should structure our taxing and govmt spending systems to encourage everyone here to be better citizens, with a goal of building a stronger USA.
Why is the government in the business of providing health insurance or retirement support? (Social security)
What part of the constitution directs the federal government to do this?
That is the reason for restrictive payouts that encourage better health habits by the populace.
The retirement support favors employees with a good work history. We would have a stable workforce if everybody had a good work history. Stable workforces provide muscle for a strong nation.
-
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/
U.S. Constitution: Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquilityprovide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-
That is the preamble.
Please show me where the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial is given broad and virtually unlimitted powers to do those very non-specific things.
-
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/
U.S. Constitution: Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquilityprovide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yep. I have that memorized.
No, it does not grant power or authority to the Federal government.
-
@Cmdr:
Correct me if I’m wrong, Linkon, but if you draw that out further, you’d be in favor of taxing DINKs more heavily then traditional families, because they are financially more healthy and thus can “afford” more taxes? (DINKs = Double Income, No Kids)
I wouldn’t mind. A lot of DINK families happen to be very liberal (as in like to spend the government’s money on everything under the sun, probably because they have the time to think of ways to spend the government’s money) while traditional families need more funding from “richer” families for government run day camp, government run schools, government run clinics for children, etc.
My earlier posting suggested that the Government should heavily tax abortion. DINK’s would be taxed on each abortion. Parents who want no more kids should also be taxed heavily on each abortion. Teens at the clinic should be heavily taxed on each abortion, although on this part, I suggest going after the irresponsible father. Clinics would need to pay a hefty annual licencing fee.
From a purely black and white point of view, I see abortion as a sin. Many grey sins in this country are taxed, like cigarettes and alcohol. I think abortion is more than 1000 times worse than a pack of cigarettes. A simplistic approach would be to set the abortion tax to about 1000 times of whatever they tax a pack of camels. The government can then cycle the generated funds from abortion back into the child tax credits with the tax system already in place.
A consultant I work with did mention that no viable candidate would ever mention such a stance, because they would lose the major party nomination. The ongoing debate on abortion is clouded by extremism on both sides, so compromise is not desired. Try to name a major candidate that has ever mentioned taxing abortion. Such a stance will draw vicious attacks and lose you over 90% of the votes from either major party.
Not only that, taxpayers have to pay for either of the extremist stance. Abortion clinic staffers put in jail costs taxpayer money. Free abortions will likewise cost taxpayers a lot of money. Such expenses weaken our nation. Elected officials with wisdom should be looking for ways to control the budget. Taxes have a strange way of affecting the population into changing their spending habits.
Who knows? Perhaps a third party will adopt the tax abortion stance.
I personally do not like taxes or abortion, but divided we fall. As a patriot, I dislike division in our great nation even more, because it makes us weak. My personal views on those 2 issues are rather black and white. Part of me thinks that a nation standing united under a gray area, can move on to solve bigger problems elsewhere in the world.
Suggested Topics
