Go ahead and admit it... you think that it's morally wrong for there to even be billionaires... that much is completely evident by the things that you have to say.
You're not very perceptive are you? And you wonder why I classify you as a "bot".
You do realize that not a single talk show host that I'm aware of is a proponent of the FairTax system.
Why don't you try and bullshit soneone else? I'm onto your little game. The only reason you know about the "fair tax" concept is because of a talk show host:
John Linder was my U.S. representative when I lived in Gwinnett County Georgia, BTW. I probably know more about the "fair tax" than you do. In fact, I'm certain I understand the fair tax on a more comprehensive level than you.
There's a political and economic ideal that vastly differs from the people you misguidedly say are my heroes.
Neal Boortz, the author of you beloved fair tax book, and nationally syndicated talk show host out of Atlanta shares your beliefs. As a matter of fact, you sound just like him with your whining faux bluster.
You're a petty, jealous little man, and that much is completely evident by the crap you spew around here. Oh, and before you accuse me of an ad hominem there, I'm using that description of you in order to tear your arguments down. If it was in a courtroom, it would go to the character of the witness.
This makes me :24:. Know why? Because if anyone had the right to piss and moan about taxes between the two of us, it would be me. I've got premium health coverage and an income in the top 5%. Would you like to compare net worth and income statements my blustering little man? But unlike you, I understand what life is like for the low income family, because I came from one, my little doctors baby boy. I'm an advocate for the uninsured, working class American, while you are a shill for the corporotocracy and the billionaire class for some unfathomable reason.
I find it infinitely amusing that it's okay for you to blast people for not agreeing with you, but God forbid if one of us do it to you. You can say we're conservative radio bots 'til you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true. Hell, I could say that the sky is green all I wanted to as well, and it would be equally as ludicrous as what you have to say.
Blast away. This is fun for me. And you have essentially been saying the sky is green on several issues. More on that in a moment.
Define productive... because I haven't read a single productive thing that you've had to say.
Oh, let's see...I have provided verifiable facts and statistics on the minimum wage and the fact that the number one cause of bankruptcies in America is due to families unable to pay their medical bills. While you, OTHO have contributed.....ummmm......nothing as yet.
Without knowing all of the details of the situation, I couldn't really comment except to say that overradiation would be grounds for a malpractice suit. My grandparents had to pay a significant amount of money for my grandma's cancer back in 1995, including seeing a specialist all the way across the country. They owed a lot of money for it, beyond what insurance covered. But they were also able to pay it off.
All you see here is "grounds for a malpractice suit"? You don't see any problem with medical bills ruining the lives of millions of Americans?
Your grand parents were very fortunate to have the means to pay this "significant amount of money". About 1,000,000 Americans each year cannot, and have their financial lives ruined.
The medical system that you seem to want for this country isn't feasible. Look at the economic numbers, look at the differences between here and Australia or anywhere else.
Explain why not? What numbers? Post them so we all can see them and discuss them.
We are the richest nation on the planet, and we cannot achieve a medical system like Australia or Germany?
The Federal Government has no constitutional right to mandate healthcare to anyone. To do so would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. That being said, I believe that individual states have every right to implement their own single-payer health care system if they choose to do so. That is their right, as protected by the 10th Amendment. But it is patently unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate it.
Ok, lets examine your position. The 10th amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, you claim this sentence makes a universal national American healthcare system unconstitutional. However the constitution also states:
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;]
That gives congress very broad authority. Tell us where the constitution "prohibits" congress from legislating national health care?
Oh, and while you are at it, explain Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The SCOTUS ruled on SS back in 1937:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
But this is not the first time you have been told this, hence your well deserved title of "bot". You repeat what you know is not true over and over as if repitition were the mother of truth.
As I've said on countless occasions... I'm a Constitutionalist first and foremost. I believe in the principles of a small federal government and the rights of individual states to implement whatever policies they see fit, so long as they aren't in violation of the Constitution, or in conflict with a policy of the Federal Government that is Constitutionally protected.
If you are going to claim you are a "constitutionalist" you should actually study the constitution for yourself instead of repeating your libertarian CATO type talking points.
Amazing concept, huh? I believe in the documents that this country was founded on. I'll break this down for you again, and perhaps you'll understand it.
I suggest you "break it down" for yourself and actually read those founding documents. And while you are at it, you might want to read some actual writings of the founders, instead of some libertarian guru's interpretation of them.
I have no problem with single-payer health care... so long as it is implemented on a state level, and not a Federal level.
What about poor states like Mississippi? What about low population states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana or South Dakota that don't have the tax base to support universal health care?
The only way that I would support a Federally mandated single-payer health care system would be through a Constitutional Amendment. That's what the Amendment process is there for. If you believe so strongly in the subject, perhaps you should be pushing your elected representatives to propose a Constitutional Amendment that would allow the Federal government to mandate a single-payer health care system for the entire country. But until that happens, any move to make that system a reality is unconstitutional.
That is your incorrect interpretation of the constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled it constitutional with its 1937 Social Security decision, whether you agree with it or not - it is the law of the land. No, it is people who interpret the constitution with a flawed political agenda like you who should be persuing the amendment angle.
In short, my opinions are. Small Federal Government, States rights, adherence to the Constitution, end of the "wars" on terror and and drugs, legalization of marijuana, the rights of anyone to marry anyone of any sexual orientation, the abolition of the existing US Tax Code and implementation of the FairTax system, and the principle of non-interventionism.
We actually agree on adherence to the constitution - you really should read it along with the founders original documents - the end of all those wars against brown people and drugs - and gay marriage.
"States Rights" has been used by scoundrels, religious fanatics and bigots since the Civil War to violate the rights of others. It's a flawed concept.
The fair tax is unfair to the working class. It's simple - How many cars and houses and consumer goods are the wealthy going to purchase and pay sales taxes on? Very few compared to the hundreds of millions of working class people. You really should spend a little more time actually thinking this unfair tax through.
Please show me a national talk radio host that shares my beliefs. Oh wait, you can't. So why don't you stop throwing that bullshit around, because it only serves to make you look even more petty and pathetic.
Here ya go:
http://www.boortz.com/s/about/
No retro, you're pathetic my friend. You'll come back and repeat the same old lines over and over and over again. Pretty sad.
