Because we don't care about other people. Poor people want to take money from you. They don't care about you. You want to keep your money from them. You don't care about them. And they apparently outnumber you. qq?
You didn't create the people who live off the government. You just kept them clothed and fed. We consider that to be more important than your crying over a 3% tax hike. You survived it during the Clinton years and you're currently getting a half trillion more out of the government than you're paying into it. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me, but I suppose no matter how much you have it's never enough.
In the age of patent trolling I suppose it's best to protect yourself by any means necessary - you might make it easier for someone to claim you ripped them off if you've already accessed all the details about their work. It might be counterintuitive, but that's why you pay lawyers the big bucks. They can worry about it for you.
But you can broaden the definition of "us". Wasilla places its interests above Anchorage's. Alaska places its interests above Oregon's. America places its interests above Japan's. So why can't the lands of the free place their interests above China's?
You are not required to sacrifice your country for the sake of France but you could at least try to play nice with your only available allies when it comes to stopping Russia and China from taking over.
Not directly, no, but cutting taxes for the rich and running an even bigger deficit means that at some point you'll have to cut social programs to pay for it. That's the part where the poor pay for it.
It seems even the internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporters hold close to their hearts the proud American tradition of fuck all y'all. (Yeah, yeah, -1 Troll)
It's also an element (somewhat) of the FairTax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax ) - the government hands you money to cover your tax bill up to the poverty level. Free money if you can live on less.
Let's assume for a moment that you are in fact telling the truth.
You can't pay Joe's bills by yourself. Joe is going to have to go around to a lot of people asking for smaller donations. This is a lot more complicated than increasing the numbers on the cheques you send to the government every spring.
What you would end up with if that situation actually worked is technically known as "less money", because you, generous fellow, are willing to help thy neighbour, and other people don't give a rat's ass. Charitable health care amounts to a tax on altruism. Is this really the setup you want, where people are rewarded for greed (even more so than now)?
It's a nice way to roll it into your existing insurance, though. You're probably going to want it already just to avoid a $25k bill when your vehicle gets totaled.
Mandatory insurance is not done for your benefit. It's done so that when you crash into someone else your pockets are deep enough to cover their lawsuits.
There's no "Joe's health care" deduction on your paycheque. You pay taxes. The government spends some of that money on Joe's health care because it considers Joe's life to be worth more than your wealth.
Funny. After taxes were cut in 2001, government tax receipts increased, substantially.
Cite please?
What you "need" is for your tax levels to adequately represent your expenditures. Nobody is going to care about high spending when they're getting stuff for free. If they were forced to actually pay for their programs there would be a lot more squawking about which ones are needed.
Because nobody wants their pet project canceled for lack of funding.
Taxes are currently too low to sustain the current spending levels. This is because you score political points by cutting taxes even if you have to borrow from China to do it. People would support spending cuts a lot more if they were a prerequisite for tax cuts.
Seniority takes something of a backseat to party affiliation. The Democrats are virtually guaranteed to hold the Senate until 2012 or later. That's a long time to sit in the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we don't care about other people. Poor people want to take money from you. They don't care about you. You want to keep your money from them. You don't care about them. And they apparently outnumber you. qq?
You didn't create the people who live off the government. You just kept them clothed and fed. We consider that to be more important than your crying over a 3% tax hike. You survived it during the Clinton years and you're currently getting a half trillion more out of the government than you're paying into it. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me, but I suppose no matter how much you have it's never enough.
In the age of patent trolling I suppose it's best to protect yourself by any means necessary - you might make it easier for someone to claim you ripped them off if you've already accessed all the details about their work. It might be counterintuitive, but that's why you pay lawyers the big bucks. They can worry about it for you.
You are not required to sacrifice your country for the sake of France but you could at least try to play nice with your only available allies when it comes to stopping Russia and China from taking over.
Two for four ain't bad indeed.
... not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later.
And the voters have vindicated it. Expect more of this in 2012 and beyond.
Not directly, no, but cutting taxes for the rich and running an even bigger deficit means that at some point you'll have to cut social programs to pay for it. That's the part where the poor pay for it.
It seems even the internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporters hold close to their hearts the proud American tradition of fuck all y'all. (Yeah, yeah, -1 Troll)
It's also an element (somewhat) of the FairTax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax ) - the government hands you money to cover your tax bill up to the poverty level. Free money if you can live on less.
The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.
As opposed to?
Thus, we have one honest politician in Washington, and your immediate response is to toss him out the door?
Come January, Ted Stevens will be exactly as powerful as Elizabeth Dole. Oh yes.
You can't pay Joe's bills by yourself. Joe is going to have to go around to a lot of people asking for smaller donations. This is a lot more complicated than increasing the numbers on the cheques you send to the government every spring.
What you would end up with if that situation actually worked is technically known as "less money", because you, generous fellow, are willing to help thy neighbour, and other people don't give a rat's ass. Charitable health care amounts to a tax on altruism. Is this really the setup you want, where people are rewarded for greed (even more so than now)?
Should Joe have to apologize for caring more about himself than about you? The converse is apparently true...
It's a nice way to roll it into your existing insurance, though. You're probably going to want it already just to avoid a $25k bill when your vehicle gets totaled.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
No, it says you have the right to bear arms. I haven't seen any bears with arms, though, so I suspect the Founding Fathers were all drunk.
That gets you nowhere if you don't happen to value the same things as Locke.
Hell, make it cheaper than free. Instead of tax cuts, start handing people $1000 a year as long as they get regular checkups and preventative care.
Mandatory insurance is not done for your benefit. It's done so that when you crash into someone else your pockets are deep enough to cover their lawsuits.
The unwashed masses who would wither and die without your money supporting them think differently. You might too if you ever go broke.
There's no "Joe's health care" deduction on your paycheque. You pay taxes. The government spends some of that money on Joe's health care because it considers Joe's life to be worth more than your wealth.
Funny. After taxes were cut in 2001, government tax receipts increased, substantially.
Cite please? What you "need" is for your tax levels to adequately represent your expenditures. Nobody is going to care about high spending when they're getting stuff for free. If they were forced to actually pay for their programs there would be a lot more squawking about which ones are needed.
Because nobody wants their pet project canceled for lack of funding. Taxes are currently too low to sustain the current spending levels. This is because you score political points by cutting taxes even if you have to borrow from China to do it. People would support spending cuts a lot more if they were a prerequisite for tax cuts.
Seniority takes something of a backseat to party affiliation. The Democrats are virtually guaranteed to hold the Senate until 2012 or later. That's a long time to sit in the minority.