UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Catholics slam Boehner for tax cuts


5/18/11 1:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 608
Grakman - flynn, how do you feel about a person having the freedom to opt ouf of paying into Social Security if they don't want to participate?  

re: the 7% taken out of a paycheck, my comment was about a world in which there is no social security. Everyone is responsible for themselves, and reliant on family and charity to help them over rough times. The question was asked 'what about the elderly and disabled?; in a situation without SS. My response was in reply to that question, not the current system.


Well, I think it's kind of an all or nothing thing. We either have it, and everyone participates, or we scrap the whole thing.

The Australian system sounds interesting. It accomplishes the same thing (force people to save for retirement), but it sounds like it keeps it out of the government's reach.
You'd probably have to have some regulations on the type of investments that could be used.
5/18/11 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4118
 Are you ok with forced purchase of healthcare insurance? 
5/18/11 7:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 613
Grakman -  Are you ok with forced purchase of healthcare insurance? 


I guess it would depend on the program. I live in AZ and we have mandatory car insurance. I'm fine with that. It's not a direct parallel but there are similarities.
5/18/11 8:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4119
inlikeflynn - 
Grakman -  Are you ok with forced purchase of healthcare insurance? 


I guess it would depend on the program. I live in AZ and we have mandatory car insurance. I'm fine with that. It's not a direct parallel but there are similarities.

 Car insurance is meant to cover losses caused to other parties, not to oneself. Even in the case of full coverage the insurance covers the loss of property to the lienholder not the driver / owner. 

In the case of Social Security and mandated health insurance the government is trying to force people to be responsible for themselves. 

How many things are we willing to allow the government to force us to do, to make us 'responsible'? I remember when everyone used to nay say and laugh about 'fat taxes' on soda and Twinkies, that it would never happen and look what has happened. It's ironic that they want to tax this type of stuff and moderate this kind of behavior because it's bad for you but see nothing wrong with sending teenage boys off to war or allowing all kinds of smut in our television music and games. 
5/19/11 2:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/19/11 2:21 AM
Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1008
I am constantly amazed that the U.S is still having debates on healthcare. Every other western nation has some form of universal healthcare, that ends up being cheaper than the U.S model - which is strange because private industry is more efficient than government, right?

And as Christians, why would you want to deny people access to medical attention? Do you think it is okay for people to go bankrupt because they cannot afford their medical treatment? 60% of U.S. bankruptcies are attributed to medical bills. Would you really miss 1% in additional income tax if it would help people to avoid bankruptcy and allow people to be treated?
5/19/11 7:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4120
Entitlements are the biggest portion of the US budget already, and we are $14 trillion in debt. 1% wouldn't be nearly enough, and the exorbitant tax rates in Europe aren't keeping those countries afloat either. Several European countries are almost bankrupt. Once that happens there is no money to help even the poorest, let alone everyone. Phone Post
5/19/11 12:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18281
you: I see you read the constitution the same way you read Scripture, i.e. your interpretation is the correct one and anyone who disagrees is incorrect. Well, I've got news for you, a lot of people, who were actually trained in the law and were constitutionally put in the positions to decide these matters disagreed and continue to disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's how America works (constitutionally).

me: inlikeflynn, don't you see a bit of hypocrisy here? You are essentially bagging on me for believing my position with surety. However, you reject my position and have your own surety in your position (which I think is some mix of socialism and freedom provided smart people can manipulate the law to justify it).

The founders disagree with the "experts" that's why they didn't establish statism that existed in the countries they fled where their "benevolent" rulers "provided" for their "subjects".

They created a free state. It's not freedom when I pay for someone's viagra under the auspices of "charity" or when taxpayers fund union bus drivers making close to 200k a year.
5/19/11 12:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18282
inlikeflynn - 
the rooster - Grak, agreed!

LTC, I'M NOT AGAINST WELFARE. I'm against the federal govt forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another who didn't earn it and aren't thankful for it.


This is really quite presumptuous. Just because you know a few deadbeats you paint everyone who has benefited from the system as ungrateful losers? There will always be people who abuse the system. Guess what, people get over on private charities too.



me: did you see the union thugs in Wisconsin trying to bully the tax payers to continue to pay for their free healthcare and pensions?!!?

That's not a few ungrateful deadbeats.

Additionally...and here's a key difference...a private charity isn't foisted upon the entire populace, with co-erced contributions. 2) anyone who is funding a private charity can *STOP* contributing if the believe their is abuse and 3) it's much more horizontal. I can give directly to a local boys home and follow the board, the instructors, the lesson plans, but if my money is taken, it frankly sort of disappears. I can't see how my contribution helps when I'm not locally tied to what I voluntarily give.

This is not FREEDOM.
5/19/11 12:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18283
LoveToChoke - I am constantly amazed that the U.S is still having debates on healthcare.

me: so am I. The notion that my neighbor should be forced to pay for my childrens healthcare by force is immoral.

you: Every other western nation has some form of universal healthcare, that ends up being cheaper than the U.S model - which is strange because private industry is more efficient than government, right?

me: There are so many fallacies here, I'm not sure where to start. Every other western nation 1) is going bankrupt 2) imposes sub par care and RATIONING 3) relies on America's private market R&D, production etc and then provides the fruit of our labor, 4) Socialist nations are not the model for the US and for freedom. Hitler implemented national healthcare...yay, let's imitate Hitler. If it's socialist and it's western europe, it must be good and 5) our cost are DRIVEN UP BY GOVT MEDDLING. We have a high cost built around mounds of govt rules and regs. We also have an insurance model with govt made restrictions (ie: you can't shot across states) that drive up costs. In some states, your most basic coverage requires by law that the policy pays for BOTOX AND VIAGRA. Do you think that makes it cost more? And how do you determine cost? do you determine it by whose system is in deeper debt? Or do you define it by whose system provides greater care?

Look, when socialist Ted Kennedy got brain cancer, he didn't go to Western Europe or Cuba or China, HE WENT TO MAYO AND PAID FOR THE BEST CARE WITH HIS OWN MONEY.

you: And as Christians, why would you want to deny people access to medical attention?

me: BS man. BS premise. No one wants to deny people access to medical attention. We don't want the govt to steal money from one group of people and force them to pay for other people's basic responsibilities.

Further, no one is denied access. Today you have people who go to the emergency room because they refuse to purchase insurance and they are treated for colds.

It's in socialized countries where people die waiting for treatment.

So let me ask you:

WHY DO YOU WANT TO SOCIALIZE OUR HEALTHCARE SO THAT THE POOR WILL NOT GET ACCESS, WILL DIE WAITING FOR TREATMENT AND PEOPLE LIKE ME WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE 1ST TIER AND WILL STILL GET GREAT HEALTHCARE.

To state the premise the way you did...why do you hate the poor? Why are you wanting to destroy our healthcare system?

you:Do you think it is okay for people to go bankrupt because they cannot afford their medical treatment?

me: it doesn't matter if it's "ok". It's tragic. But it doesn't give the state the right TAKE THE MONEY FROM OTHER PEOPLE. There are ways to pay for healthcare beyond insurance. There are telethons that raise millions annually, there are organizations like "the dreamhouse", etc. You act like the govt taking the money from other people is the only way to pay for one's medical needs.

you: 60% of U.S. bankruptcies are attributed to medical bills. Would you really miss 1% in additional income tax if it would help people to avoid bankruptcy and allow people to be treated?

me: This is the game socialist play. take 1% here for medicine, 1% here for SS, 1% here for medicare, 1% here for public education, 1% here for the roads and viola, before you know it, the state has confiscated 50% of the producers income for all these "essential" services. Then they spend it on their own jet set lifestyle and throw a pittance to their voting constiuents.

How America ever survied prior to the great society, we'll never know, but innovation, healthcare, doctors coming to your home, affordability and the budget of the US were all in far better conditions then we began to follow the immoral western europe model."

Why do you think it's ok to steal other peoples money? I don't get it.

Taking people's money against their will is theft. Period.
5/19/11 1:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 615
Grakman - 
inlikeflynn - 
Grakman -  Are you ok with forced purchase of healthcare insurance? 


I guess it would depend on the program. I live in AZ and we have mandatory car insurance. I'm fine with that. It's not a direct parallel but there are similarities.

 Car insurance is meant to cover losses caused to other parties, not to oneself. Even in the case of full coverage the insurance covers the loss of property to the lienholder not the driver / owner. 

In the case of Social Security and mandated health insurance the government is trying to force people to be responsible for themselves. 
[/qoute]

It's not a perfect analogy but I think you're missing something. Let's say someone who doesn't have insurance or the means to pay for medical care out of pocket has a heart attack. He's taken to the hospital for treatment. At this point there are two choices:

Refuse treatment because of inability to pay (this presents some obvious problems including figuring out the ability to pay in an emergency situation and of course, letting someone die in the ER lobby).

Or, treat him/her and bill them. Generally, a person in this situation is not going to be able to pay an enormous hospital bill so they either just don't pay or file bankruptcy and either way, the hospital eats it. The hospital has to make up those losses somewhere so we all end up paying more. So, essentially, we end up paying for someone's irresponsibility anyway. That's where I think the similarity between forced auto and health insurance lies.


How many things are we willing to allow the government to force us to do, to make us 'responsible'? I remember when everyone used to nay say and laugh about 'fat taxes' on soda and Twinkies, that it would never happen and look what has happened. It's ironic that they want to tax this type of stuff and moderate this kind of behavior because it's bad for you but see nothing wrong with sending teenage boys off to war or allowing all kinds of smut in our television music and games. 


Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? Personally, I think the answer is somewhere between nothing at all and everything. We have to debate this, and as a society, come to some kind of agreement.
5/19/11 1:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 616
Crap, forgot to close the quote. Hope you can decifer my answers.
5/19/11 1:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 617
the rooster - you: I see you read the constitution the same way you read Scripture, i.e. your interpretation is the correct one and anyone who disagrees is incorrect. Well, I've got news for you, a lot of people, who were actually trained in the law and were constitutionally put in the positions to decide these matters disagreed and continue to disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's how America works (constitutionally).

me: inlikeflynn, don't you see a bit of hypocrisy here? You are essentially bagging on me for believing my position with surety. However, you reject my position and have your own surety in your position (which I think is some mix of socialism and freedom provided smart people can manipulate the law to justify it).


No, I don't because I'm not expressing surety. The constitution, like Scripture, is often not black and white and is open to interpretation. I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned, and diligent people can come to different conclusions and it isn't "unbelievable" when they don't agree with me.


The founders disagree with the "experts" that's why they didn't establish statism that existed in the countries they fled where their "benevolent" rulers "provided" for their "subjects".


They created a flexible framework, and a process whereby the government can make laws to "promote the general welfare of the people". That's what happened with SS.


They created a free state. It's not freedom when I pay for someone's viagra under the auspices of "charity" or when taxpayers fund union bus drivers making close to 200k a year.


Or non-defensive war(s)? Or a huge military-industrial complex well beyond what is needed for defensive purposes?
5/19/11 1:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18289
you: No, I don't because I'm not expressing surety. The constitution, like Scripture, is often not black and white and is open to interpretation.

me: that IS surety. You are expressing an absolute position. The constitution and scripture are not "black and white". Your one absolute is that they are not absolute. (note: i'm not putting the constitution as equal to the bible, merely that the limited and enumerated powers of the govt were listed and clear and philsophically we know that context of the founders).

you: I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned, and diligent people can come to different conclusions and it isn't "unbelievable" when they don't agree with me.

me: right. And you don't believe me so I'm non intelligent and non well intentioned?

you: They created a flexible framework, and a process whereby the government can make laws to "promote the general welfare of the people". That's what happened with SS.

me: when in the context of a limited government. Not a monarch or socialistic model. Flexibility through the legistlative process was still limited (ie: you can't pass a law that women can kill their children or people can be forced to buy a service they don't want...oh wait).

Their is the ammending process but all are constricted by the "shackles" of the govt. Otherwise, you could use the welfare clause to endorse anything. (and welfare here meant the well being of free people not a check by the tax payers).

you: Or non-defensive war(s)? Or a huge military-industrial complex well beyond what is needed for defensive purposes

me: fine. Agreed. So let's pull out all foreign aid, let's bring all our troops home (and put the on the border) and build up our missile shields. I'd be all for that.

I'm all for consistency. are you?
5/19/11 2:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 618
the rooster - you: No, I don't because I'm not expressing surety. The constitution, like Scripture, is often not black and white and is open to interpretation.

me: that IS surety. You are expressing an absolute position. The constitution and scripture are not "black and white". Your one absolute is that they are not absolute. (note: i'm not putting the constitution as equal to the bible, merely that the limited and enumerated powers of the govt were listed and clear and philsophically we know that context of the founders).


That tired rhetorical device?

you: I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned, and diligent people can come to different conclusions and it isn't "unbelievable" when they don't agree with me.

me: right. And you don't believe me so I'm non intelligent and non well intentioned?


What? How did you get that from what I wrote?


you: They created a flexible framework, and a process whereby the government can make laws to "promote the general welfare of the people". That's what happened with SS.

me: when in the context of a limited government. Not a monarch or socialistic model. Flexibility through the legistlative process was still limited (ie: you can't pass a law that women can kill their children or people can be forced to buy a service they don't want...oh wait).

Their is the ammending process but all are constricted by the "shackles" of the govt. Otherwise, you could use the welfare clause to endorse anything. (and welfare here meant the well being of free people not a check by the tax payers).


Right, there is a checks and balances system (set up by the founding fathers) to determine which laws violate the constitution. That system was used, you just don't like the results.


you: Or non-defensive war(s)? Or a huge military-industrial complex well beyond what is needed for defensive purposes

me: fine. Agreed. So let's pull out all foreign aid, let's bring all our troops home (and put the on the border) and build up our missile shields. I'd be all for that.

I'm all for consistency. are you?


Well, that's a start. I can't stand it when conservatives rail against social programs while ignoring one of the largest areas of spending.
5/19/11 2:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1010
The fact is, government healthcare in other countries is comparable to the U.S and is half the price. Nice use of emotive language too "Hitler had national healthcare so it must be bad". Nice logic. Your country can afford it, just like mine can. My country has national healthcare, social welfare, has strong financial regulations, a higher standard of living than the U.S all while having the lowest rate of debt to GDP ratio in the developed world. We expect to be out of debt in two years. So healthcare and welfare have nothing to do with a government being in debt. Phone Post
5/19/11 5:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4131

Where do you live Love? Er. Choke? :-P

5/19/11 5:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18295

you: That tired rhetorical device?

me: ok, I'll take that as "you win that one Rooster".

you: That system was used, you just don't like the results.

me: no it was circumverted, perverted, distorted and manipulated. Killing unborn babies is "constitutional"? C'mon man. Viagra for healthcare?!!?

5/19/11 5:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1011
I live in Australia. Phone Post
5/19/11 8:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 621
"you: That tired rhetorical device?

me: ok, I'll take that as "you win that one Rooster".

you: That system was used, you just don't like the results."

OK, you win "best use of rhetorical device that doesn't really speak to the issue at hand" award.

"me: no it was circumverted, perverted, distorted and manipulated. Killing unborn babies is "constitutional"? C'mon man. Viagra for healthcare?!!?"

You're all over the place here, Rooster. Anyway, I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you want to argue that Roe V Wade usurped the states' right to decide whether abortion was legal or not, I am sympathetic to that argument. Unfortunately, the Court didn't see it that way.

As far as Viagra goes, I'm not sure in what context you mean here, but I would say this: Sex is an integral part of a healthy relationship between husband and wife. I'm sure the inability to perform sexually is quite detrimental to a man's mental health (I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing :), so I have no problem with Viagra coverage being included in any health plan.
5/20/11 11:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18300
you: OK, you win "best use of rhetorical device that doesn't really speak to the issue at hand" award.

me: ok, my point was that you seem put off by my certainty but you have certainty that I'm not right or you would agree with me. You have as much certainty in "gray" as I do in black and white. So let's take that off the table can we?

you: You're all over the place here, Rooster.

me: my point was that the founders would have never contemplated distorting the constitution to allow the confiscation of personal assets/wealth to support killing babies in the womb, paying union bus drivers close to 200k a year, etc. The fact that elites manipulate the constution doesn't make it right, in fact it's downright dangerous.

you: Anyway, I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you want to argue that Roe V Wade usurped the states' right to decide whether abortion was legal or not, I am sympathetic to that argument. Unfortunately, the Court didn't see it that way.

me: but the court is not infallible. The court is made up of idealouges. Their mandate is only to state whether or not the constitution enumerates a power, duty or function. Clearly there is no right enumerated in the constitution to kill unborn babies. So, leaning on "smart people" doesn't deal with corrupt smart people.

you: As far as Viagra goes, I'm not sure in what context you mean here, but I would say this: Sex is an integral part of a healthy relationship between husband and wife. I'm sure the inability to perform sexually is quite detrimental to a man's mental health (I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing :), so I have no problem with Viagra coverage being included in any health plan.

me: you missed the point. Premiums are high because it is a required coverage. In some states you can't strip down a policy because they are all required to cover viagra. That's an example of the state hurting market based solutions.

The other point is that tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for some union guys healthcare that includes viagra. If he wants viagra, buy it himself or buy a policy that includes it as a rider.

This goes back to the main point of the thread. Whose money is it? When someone earns money, it's theft to take it from them and give it to other people. We've now gone from decrying the right for wanting to kill the elderly (wrong) and for not wanting to help a few of the ligitimately poor (wrong) to defending abortion with tax dollars and defending viagra!

You can see why Boehner is doing the right thing by cutting taxes thereby letting free people keep what they have earned and determine how they want to spend it.
5/20/11 2:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3308
the rooster - 
toelocku - Deu 15:11 because the needy one doth not cease out of the land, therefore I am commanding thee, saying, Thou dost certainly open thy hand to thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy one, in thy land.

Jam 2:6 and ye did dishonour the poor one; do not the rich oppress you and themselves draw you to judgment-seats;


This is smug self righteousness. Why don't you guess how much I gave both in taxes and charitable contributions in last 3 months buddy. You have no clue. Probably more then you made last year. Don't lecture me.

The rich is your own govt, jet setting in tax payer funded airplanes, hob knobbing with lobbyist paying them to leave their companies alone, or to give them unfair advantages, eating steak and cavier, etc.

Obama's income was reported at 12mm. This guy has NEVER HAD A JOB. Give me a break.

I believe in helping the poor. I actually do it with my own money and time instead of demanding that the govt steal it from others.



'don't lecture me'....with SCRIPTURE...'when i have the constitution to guide me'...


I won't contradict your economic knowledge as it would be a waste both our times.

and i KNOW you've not given as much as me spiritually (LOrd willing) what i'm really concerned about.

i don't support government officials living better than kings but put the widow and orphan before those things (which has always been the case) as GOD says.

your 'stealing' accusation condradicts your god the constitution as it provides for taxation and the regulation of interstate comerse. car insurance is an example of 'forced' insurance as 98% of people have to drive to make a livin(defacto).

what do you mean...you hate the poor, they steal from you those damn 100 year olds in nursin home layin in there own shit cause there isnt enough aides to take care of them from medicare cuts. **spits** IVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES.

inlikeflyn & lovetochoke...you can't give facts to people like this...i know...i've grown up around these hippocrates my whole life.

they follow USA worship and not God...i was one of them for a long time.

Germany Canada and Aussie are kicking our butts because of these people...its religious in nature i'm tellin ya. They really think they are right and facts won't matter.

hopefully and prayerfully a change of heart will come to the usa worshipers SOON.
5/20/11 2:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3309
Grakman -  rooster, toelock has already admitted he is a fan of the National Socialist party of post-WW I Germany.  If he means what he says that means he is actually in favor of censorship, among other things. (You and I might end up in the gulag, rooster!)<br type="_moz" /> 
And yes, staggering is the word. I would also add 'mouth agape' and 'dumbfounded.'

NO GULAG...worse...THE LAKE OF FIRE.
5/20/11 3:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4149
So toelock you're saying if we disagree with your politics we're going to the Lake of Fire? lol Phone Post
5/20/11 6:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18301
toe: 'don't lecture me'....with SCRIPTURE...'when i have the constitution to guide me'...

You didn't lecture me with scripture. You misapplied a scripture pretending that the bible says you must have your money stolen by the state to be charitable. it doesn't.

you: I won't contradict your economic knowledge as it would be a waste both our times.

and i KNOW you've not given as much as me spiritually (LOrd willing) what i'm really concerned about.

me: how do you know that????

you: i don't support government officials living better than kings but put the widow and orphan before those things (which has always been the case) as GOD says.

your 'stealing' accusation condradicts your god the constitution as it provides for taxation and the regulation of interstate comerse. car insurance is an example of 'forced' insurance as 98% of people have to drive to make a livin(defacto).

me; you understand that car insurance is not a federal mandate right??

The constitution is merely a document that ensures liberty so that people can worship as they please, give as they please, etc.

you: ...what do you mean...you hate the poor, they steal from you those damn 100 year olds in nursin home layin in there own shit cause there isnt enough aides to take care of them from medicare cuts. **spits** IVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES.

me: So the state stealing my money and keeping most of it is the only and best solution? Does the bible say that we should have our money taken so people who were displaced in the new orleans flood can use my money to buy 'girls gone wild' video's and use them at Casino's and strip joints?

Is that what the bible teaches?

I'm all for helping the truly poor and destitute. So I do. I don't need the state to steal my money and giving it to Fortune 100 companies to prove i'm charitable.

Was Goldman Sachs dying in a nursin home laying in their own "shit" cause there wasn't enough aids to take care of them?

you:
they follow USA worship and not God...i was one of them for a long time.

me: it's presumptive my friend.

you: Germany Canada and Aussie are kicking our butts because of these people...its religious in nature i'm tellin ya. They really think they are right and facts won't matter.

hopefully and prayerfully a change of heart will come to the usa worshipers SOON.

me: why are you a Germany Canada and Aussie socialist worshiper? I will take US as a constitutional republic over your consortium of socialist countries.
5/20/11 11:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1015
FYI, that "socialist" country Australia has lower taxes and rates higher on scores for economic freedom and happiness, and lower for social inequity than the U.S. We also have an economy going so well that the Reserve Bank is considering increasing interest rates. Our cities also consistently rate in the top places to live in the world. Not bad for a "socialist country" with universal healthcare. Phone Post

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.