Originally Posted by Rock

At least all the companies you list actually produce something I can use. So I get something back on my involuntary investment.
What do I get back from welfare rats? More crime, more children without parents and more demands that I give them more money to support their lifestyles until I can pay even more money to pay their medical bills or prison bills.
Given those choices, I'll take Biffy and Muff.

Originally Posted by StarClipper

...how much is a life worth to you guys. Dang stop complaining about $70 a month. You waste more on beers. You pay $70 out of $12000+ I may pay $35 out of $4000 Do the math like I said we may all be in the same tax bracket. Fly safe BTW I'm not a Democrat, and the free phone was in place before this Administration

Originally Posted by StarClipper

And yes I don't care if only 50cent on a dollar goes to the cause I'm proud of helping save a life. It's a small price to pay.

Originally Posted by Rock

I would argue that a vast majority of social welfare dollars are handed out freely to its recipients with no expectation of any service in return, other than that they spend it. While on a very surface level, that sounds like an easy way of stimulating the economy, it completely ignores the cost of sustaining growing cultures of American citizens who have not surprisingly learned that they should expect something for doing nothing. To go back to the article, we are doing exactly what the author says doesn't work. Planting (or more accurately, throwing) seed into an inhospitable environment and expecting it to take root. Go into any urban or rural community where that practice has been in play for more than a generation and witness the result. There's no fertile, economic garden of Eden. There is an economic black hole of angry dependents, demanding the government "appropriate" even more money from people who work for a living to pay for the ever increasing expenses of sustaining a growing population of people who have learned not to work.
Meanwhile, guys like Blodget insist that the solution is to "appropriate" even more money from corporations and people in our culture who actually do produce something, in the hopes that at some point, the people who have learned the benefit of not working will somehow give enough of their free money back to feed economic growth. If that theory worked, it would have. At least once. In all the times in the last several centuries it has been tried.
Blodget must be really excited about what is currently going on in France. Let's sit back and watch how 75% tax rates on their richest citizens works. If Blodget is correct, France is entering a new dawn of economic prosperity. If he's wrong, he'll never admit it.

Originally Posted by Sum Ting Wong

The opposition to ACA is not based on the supposed purpose of the law to insure millions of uninsured Americans. Nobody disputes the benefits of actually having coverage, But the answer is not this, this pin-headed bureaucratic foul-up, this liberal nanny-state overreach, this math-challenged monstrosity.
It won't work, nobody really believes it'll work and it took a basket-full of lies to get it passed. The opposition to this law is that it is bad legislation.
And don't play the overused "save-a-life card".

StarClipper is just locked in his leftist bubble and are convinced of his own way of thinking. You think he'll quit once he gets socialized medicine? No, and he won't be satisfied until he creates an entirely socialist state. And it will be totalitarian in nature. It always is. Socialist utopia is always impossible because they fundamentally misunderstand human nature.

Originally Posted by Busboy

And, you are so open to other's views...Too funny!!