wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:36 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

And who determines what "their own best interests" are. Those
protecting their own best interests?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.



There are many states with no helmet law. I thought you were all tough
guys, dummy?

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...

[ snip ]

That is how it started in Canada in the early lat 60's - early 70's when
rich was $25k per year. Now even lower class working poor pay more than
ever before.

The real reason Obama want's this is to generate revenue to skim from the
tax system for bailouts and added Obama debt spending. Lets be clear, the
government is bankrupt and hungry for your wealth and money.

What Americans really need is a constitution ammendment forbiddign
government bailouts and the death penalty for corruption. Spell it out in
law and enforce it. Just uttering bailout on the taxpayer is a crime.

Retuurn some sanity to DC, turff and seantor or congress person that did not
stand up in 2008 and 2009 and say bailouts are corruption. Which is almost
all of them.

Statism big government needs to put the breaks on debt-corruption-spend. It
isn't that they don't gen enough of our money, they waste too much of it.

On Sep 22, 10:47*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Toots Sweet" wrote in message

...

[ snip ]

That is how it started in Canada in the early lat 60's - early 70's when
rich was $25k per year. *Now even lower class working poor pay more than
ever before.

of course, in the US, per capita healthcare spending is about 2X what
it is in other countries. the right wing ignores this because it's a
'free market' issue and they're fundamentalists about the illusionary
'free market' and 'rational choice' economics...both of which have
been proven to be wrong.



The real reason Obama want's this is to generate revenue to skim from the
tax system for bailouts and added Obama debt spending. *Lets be clear, the
government is bankrupt and hungry for your wealth and money.

bush bankrupted both the govt and the economy. he turned both over to
'free market' financial engineers who transferred jobs out of the
country, and middle class wealth to the rich.

Statism big government needs to put the breaks on debt-corruption-spend. *It
isn't that they don't gen enough of our money, they waste too much of it.

and the 'free market' has destroyed more of the national wealth than
the govt ever did