TomAiello

Which Republicans? The one's who've watched polls in the past already understand that this tells us nothing. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Great post. I wish you'd made it into a separate thread instead of burying it on page 7 of this one. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, since there are only three or four of them, we can just call them by name. Why have a classification when you can just use "Ron and Leon"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Aren't the same people in charge of healthcare in the UK? (we should give them healthcare in the USA too, because they're obviously doing a good job, so we should give them additional responsibilities whenever possible)

And people jumping out of good airplanes should be put into asylums... Clearly. We should all be jumping off cliffs. It's much safer. And when was the last time you heard about a cliff crashing? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I can see how a requirement for "fairness" in political discourse would destroy the First Amendment. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I hate to admit it, but I'm wavering on that one. Obama seems to actually believe in things (definitely not the same things I believe in, but I give him credit for having ideals and sticking to them), where Clinton has always seemed mostly to believe in amassing political power. But Obama keeps doing weird stuff that seems to contradict his stated principles, and I'm beginning to worry that he may just have a better poker face than Clinton. I think I'm still at "admire the guy, disagree with his policies", but I worry that I'm getting closer to "feel like he sold me a bill of goods about who he is." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Have you seen the video where John Stossel films a Canadian town having a lottery to see who wins the new patient appointment with the local primary care provider? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Since Bush was the least popular, and Clinton the most popular, at the end of their terms, I'm not sure this tells us anything. Perhaps it tells us that as a President you're better off to start unpopular, so you can turn things around (like Clinton, opposite Bush), which would mean Obama is in trouble, since he's started out so popular. On the other hand...nah...I'm going with "this tells us nothing." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Because no access to sound legal advise, usually, will not result in failing health or death. It could result in homelessness or incarceration, though, and those are pretty serious things. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are we talking about "dying in the street" though? Is the flatscreen TV equivalent to a colonoscopy? A mammogram? An abortion? A boob job? What about a million dollar procedure that will extend the life of a 98 year old by another bed-ridden 3 months? We at a flat screen TV anywhere in there? "Healthcare" covers a lot of ground. Critical care without which a normal, healthy person would die and with which they'd live another 50 years is one thing. But there is a lot of grey area here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Where, exactly, did you find such a thing? Also, I'm curious if you read CanuckinUSA's post, and if you have a response to it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wait, you mean the people benefiting from a government hand out wouldn't want to end it? I'm shocked... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So, no keeping international sea lanes free from pirates for the pursuit of commercial profit? No. There's a profit to be made, which means that the corporations making the profit ought to bear the full costs of their operation. Which means they are the ones who ought to pay for their own defense in the sea lanes. I've got no problem with having the true cost (including defense of the cargo) be born by the people who actually want the goods. The transport companies ought to defend themselves (or hire someone to do it), and then pass the additional cost on to the people who hire them, who will pass it on to the people who buy their goods. That way, the people who actually benefit will pay for the protection, instead of all of us having to foot the bill, even if we don't want those particular goods. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I can afford to be taxed for it. I thought you said you couldn't afford health insurance? If you can't afford to go out and buy it, how can you afford to pay for it in taxes? And then pay for some for other people, too? George is correct. You can afford to let some other people be taxed for it. If you could afford to be taxed for the actual cost, you'd be buying insurance for yourself already. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. Why not? We've got functional toll roads now, and lots of private schools which are often of higher quality than our public schools. Give back all the tax money that gets siphoned into the crappy public schools, and people would have the ability to pay for good education, instead of being forced into bad public schools. Ever wonder why the Obama girls don't go to public school? We'd just make the boarders walk the plank. Sorry, couldn't resist. In all seriousness, we could defend our nation with about 5% of our current "defense" budget (which might more properly be called our "imperialism" budget). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Since corporations are just ownership mechanisms that trace back to real people who own them, the fairest way to tax them would be not at all. You'd tax all the ownership dividends when they made it back to the actual owners. Otherwise, you're taxing them twice--once at the corporate level and once at the individual level. What's fair about that? ***Again this is personal opinion of mine that out of all the things we get taxed for; Healthcare is one of the things that I can understand and would not mind. The others fuck that a whole lot of other threads. I'd prefer not to have to pay for about 95% of what the government does now. That includes healthcare, invading foreign countries, and a whole host of other things. If you don't mind paying for other people's healthcare, that's great, I applaud you. But I find it reprehensible that you approve of throwing me in jail if I don't share your conviction. Why not pay your share and leave me alone to do as I wish? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No. But it sure effects how you deal with it. A responsible person plans for contingencies, carries insurance, and makes sure they have a financial cushion to deal with emergencies. Being prepared for an illness is part of being a responsible person. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're stereotyping Adam based on your thoughts about other people. I bet he's got a "bug up his ass" about virtually all taxes. 40% of us pay no Federal Income Tax. That seems really unfair to me. Does it seem fair to you? Ah...the old "bad things are happening all the time, so why do you worry about this bad thing?" argument. We pay because if we don't men with guns come and throw us in jail. That doesn't mean we're happy about it, or want to pay more, or even want to pay the half or so of our income that currently goes to taxes of one sort or another. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why is healthcare any less optional than good legal advice, or good tax services? We all have to navigate the legal system, and doing so poorly can do all kinds of bad things to us. We all have to pay taxes, and again, there is a huge downside to doing it poorly. Why don't we have a government run, socialized legal or accounting service? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That would be true in a pure democracy. I'm thankful not to live in one of those. It shouldn't matter if 51% of Americans vote to kill off the other 49%--they should not have that right. Majority should never rule absolutely. The rights of minorities must be protected. The problem here is that a majority is forcing something on a minority. How is that ok? If the majority of people in your state voted to outlaw gay marriage, would you be ok with that? Or would you argue that, even though they are in the minority, people possess certain rights the majority should not abridge? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Both of you, knock it off, guys. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Currently, government supplied healthcare, such as Medicaid, is funded partially by the states. Your federal income tax argument is intellectually dishonest. We're talking about a Federal program here. What's dishonest is that the federal government wants to make the states pay for it. Do you have figures on State income tax payment rates? How many people who are not paying Federal Income Tax are making substantial payments to the states? What percentage of total income tax revenue is collected by the states, as opposed to the federal government? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That would be acceptable to me. I don't think we need a big military to push our imperial agenda around the world. I think it's bad for us here, and bad for the world, too. I also think that an adequately armed population is sufficient defense against foreign occupation. People in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have done pretty well resisting occupation by the imperial forces, and they were barely armed when things began. I'd rather we scrapped the imperial military and relied on the fact that, even if an invasion was successful, an occupation never could be. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Your assuming that "we" are a collective, with only one voice, and that all of "our" property (and time) is already collectively shared. The government is stealing from some people, and giving to others. They are _not_ the same people. I know that _I_ didn't make any such request. And I didn't ask or authorize anyone else to do so for me. What "we" requested is actually that government take stuff from "them" and give it to "us". -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com