So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

The progressive income tax (those with greater incomes pay at a higher rate) was initiated by those who wished to use government to help bring about economic equality, one of the basic goals of socialism. Whereas a regressive tax burdens the poor, a progressive tax targets the rich. Such taxation punishes initiative and reduces the incentive to work hard and invest. The scriptures do teach that those who are materially blessed have a greater responsibility to society---"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48) BUT it is not for the government to redistribute the wealth of its citizens. The needs of the poor are best met by voluntary charity rather than by progressive taxation. When the government does it, they are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. A 'robinhood' kind of stealing is no more acceptable than any other form of thievery.

The cost of financing the states and their local governmental divisions has risen dramatically in recent decades. In the early 1960's, all state and local governments combined were spending approx. $70 billion a year; by 1993 they were spending about 1.2 trillion a year. Although a portion of this enormous increase must be attributed to inflation, a large part of it is a result of many citizens insisting that state and local government provide them with more and more services! Government must have money to function, and the more functions it performs, the more money it must have. This is why people are upset with the HC public option. It's cost will blow us out of the water. We can not sustain any more spending!

The progressive income tax (those with greater incomes pay at a higher rate) was initiated by those who wished to use government to help bring about economic equality, one of the basic goals of socialism. Whereas a regressive tax burdens the poor, a progressive tax targets the rich. Such taxation punishes initiative and reduces the incentive to work hard and invest. The scriptures do teach that those who are materially blessed have a greater responsibility to society---"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48) BUT it is not for the government to redistribute the wealth of its citizens. The needs of the poor are best met by voluntary charity rather than by progressive taxation. When the government does it, they are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. A 'robinhood' kind of stealing is no more acceptable than any other form of thievery.

Do you have any idea the staggering amount of money it costs to help the poor and struggling in our society? Social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, housing subsidies for the poor, child care subsidies,unemployment benefits, etc.. This is what we do as a nation and what makes us great and separates us from third world and developing nations. I am proud that we don't treat our poor with a "you made your bed now lie in it" attitude.

And you want ALL of these needs to be taken care of by VOLUNTARY charitible contributions? How very naive and unrealistic.

Do you have any idea the staggering amount of money it costs to help the poor and struggling in our society? Social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, housing subsidies for the poor, child care subsidies,unemployment benefits, etc.. This is what we do as a nation and what makes us great and separates us from third world and developing nations. I am proud that we don't treat our poor with a "you made your bed now lie in it" attitude.

And you want ALL of these needs to be taken care of by VOLUNTARY charitible contributions? How very naive and unrealistic.

From the time a person turns 16 and is able to hold down a job, they should begin to put away a small sum of their income for their retirement every week. Even if it's just $5 or 10 dollars. Over time, this money can be invested, and will grow. There are also IRA's that can be used. Financial planning for ones future needs to be every persons responsibility. If they did not do that through their working years of life because they wanted to buy a flat screen TV instead or because cigarettes were part of their weekly expences, how is this anyones fault but their own? The government should not have to be the one to support anyone in their retirement. God has also stated that your own children should take care of you in your old age. If they choose not to do this for their parents, how is this anyone elses fault but their own? This paragraph only covers the social program of social security.

Believe me, if the government wasn't there handing out the dough that they don't even have, the people would have to help each other. Take away the financial support of your lingering at home young adult and see how quickly he begins to figure out a way to meet his needs.

From the time a person turns 16 and is able to hold down a job, they should begin to put away a small sum of their income for their retirement every week. Even if it's just $5 or 10 dollars. Over time, this money can be invested, and will grow. There are also IRA's that can be used. Financial planning for ones future needs to be every persons responsibility. If they did not do that through their working years of life because they wanted to buy a flat screen TV instead or because cigarettes were part of their weekly expences, how is this anyones fault but their own? The government should not have to be the one to support anyone in their retirement. God has also stated that your own children should take care of you in your old age. If they choose not to do this for their parents, how is this anyone elses fault but their own? This paragraph only covers the social program of social security.

Believe me, if the government wasn't there handing out the dough that they don't even have, the people would have to help each other. Take away the financial support of your lingering at home young adult and see how quickly he begins to figure out a way to meet his needs.

This is beyond naive. What about stay at home moms whose husband dies when she is young and has several children? We have social security for her children now. What about those who become disabled and can't work? We have social security for that now. What about the person who becomes unemployed and loses healthcare? We have unemployment for that.

What about the working poor? They do have jobs but will never be able to afford healthcare. We had medicaid for that. And those who work but can't afford housing? We have subsidies for that.

What about elderly who never had children and become ill and need 24/7 care? We have nursing homes funded by medicaid for that.

I could go on and on but you make no sense in your assessments and show that you don't have a realistic grasp of how the world is.

You live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white and RIGID. Grow up. That's not the real world.

This is beyond naive. What about stay at home moms whose husband dies when she is young and has several children? We have social security for her children now. What about those who become disabled and can't work? We have social security for that now. What about the person who becomes unemployed and loses healthcare? We have unemployment for that.

This is not what social security was initially intended for. It was for those who contributed into it, who would need it when they retire. The government felt they needed to help people save for their retirement since they weren't doing it on their own. Can I help it if the government stole my retirement money to give to other social needs that they felt it should go to without my consent?

What about the working poor? They do have jobs but will never be able to afford healthcare. We had medicaid for that. And those who work but can't afford housing? We have subsidies for that.

My grown, young adult children are "the working poor" you speak of. They need to be creative, sell their craft items on the side, work 2 jobs, go to school and better themselves, don't expect life's abundance to be handed to them on a silver platter. Live with a friend and split the expenses, better yet, live with 2 or 3 friends for a few years and split the expenses until you can save up enough money to go to school or start a business of your own. This is the land of opportunity if you will get up and go for it. The constuitution ensures each individual the right to "pursue" happiness, life and liberty, not "give" it to you. BTW, Health Care is not a 'right'. Show me where the constitution says that it is. I should not have to pay for someone elses home or rent through subsides. I have my own place to pay for, and they should also.

What about elderly who never had children and become ill and need 24/7 care? We have nursing homes funded by medicaid for that.

Why didn't they save for their retirement? Now, because they never did, I must support them? How is this fair to the people who work hard and save their money? Believe me, I am willing to help anyone who may need it. But like I've said before, the government social programs are getting too big and out of hand. All this takes money. Money we don't have. The government needs to put some of the financial responsibility of caring for themselves back onto the people. Because others are not willing to be responsible for their own needs, the tax payer is forced to support them and in so doing is denied the very rights that they worked so hard to achieve due to the burden of taxation by the government to meet the needs of those who didn't. Some government programs are needed. MOST are not. They need to pare down their excessive give aways!

I could go on and on but you make no sense in your assessments and show that you don't have a realistic grasp of how the world is.

You live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white and RIGID. Grow up. That's not the real world.

................................................................................

Yes, that is what social security was designed for. For the elderly in retirement, and the children of widows and widowers and to provide disability payments. And the recipients get paid with the contributions of CURRENT workers. The first people to receive SS in our country did not contribute to it. The workers of that day were paying for it. And those receiving it now are getting paid from the contributions of current workers.

And since the stock market tanked you don't hear too much about the privatization of social security. People see how their 401(K) lost 50% of their value in this economic crisis. So much for saving for retirement!!! What about those who did save and then lost 50%? I guess they should just continue to work until they drop dead.

Most of the working poor are single mothers. They need subsidized child care to be able to work otherwise it wouldn't be profitable to work. But even still they can't afford rent, food, or healthcare. That's where rent subsidies, food stamps and medicaid comes in.

The constitution says we have the right to life...healthcare is life. Without it people die. If an embryo has the right to life, then already born people do and that means healthcare.

HEALTHCARE = LIFE. Don't you get it????

And nursing home care is $7000 - $10,000 per month. Who has that kind of money saved? Sometimes people go into nursing homes when they are younger and have suffered a tragic accident or disease that leaves them unable to take care of themselves. They are supposed to have saved this much money?? Ridiculous and unrealistic, as usual.

Your whole analysis is ridiculous & unrealistic.

The constitution guarantees you the PURSUIT of life, liberty and happiness, not the guarantee of it. Nothing in life is guaranteed, and the government should not be providing it for you if you can get it yourself. That's right. If you can get it, they should not be providing it for you. There are far too many people who CAN get what they need, but to choose to allow the government to provide it for them. I have a sister who gets free oil every year, yet has a better car than my other sister, and owns a home. I know people who get food stamps, yet smoke a $7.00 pack of cigarettes a day. Hey! what about buying your needs before your desires???!!! This is what kills me. I work hard and have to pay for everyone else who doesn't their basic needs. I even paid 8000. towards everyone who bought a new house this year and 4000 toward everyone who bought a new car with my tax dollars. I bought a brand new car 2 years ago and paid cash for it because I saved my hard earned money and when I had enough, I bought it. Noone gave me anything towards it, because I didn't deserve it nor did anyone else, Yet Obama's administration felt that this was a good thing to do to help the economy that his system of give aways has created!

Government must have money to function, and the more functions it performs, the more money it must have. We just don't have enough for all the programs they desire. It is getting too big and needs to be cut down a few notches. Start slashing programs that are wasteful and start laying off all the government jobs that are wasteful.

Pattygreen,

Are you one of those people that are Amish? If you are I am so sorry I didn't catch it until I read this post. But if that is the case and you practice ideas such as you Amish do.....why are you sneaking on the computer at these weird hours when you know full well you must be violating some tradition of modern day creature comforts. I take back the stuff I said and thought. Now I get it.

You think that if someone in the United States of America can't make a living or pay for health care or work because they are disabled or take care of a special needs child or afford medication because they do not have enough education to get the kind of job that will pay enough.... that they should just buckle down and get a roommate? Or devise some craft project to pay for the necessities to survive?

If all Americans believed this, we wouldn't be the strong country that we are.

Using your logic, if you can't afford to pay for the highway to get you out of your neighborhood patty, then you should just put a few coins away until you can pay for it. The government sure doesn't owe you a road! Tough Beans on you. We don't guarantee you a road, or electricity or clean Water. You need to get out there and dig a well..

oh yeah, it is probably contaminated with chemicals from the huge conglomerate corporations that can do whatever they want in order to make billions of dollars. It isn't up to them to see to it that our water table stays free of contaminants. They are in it for free enterprise and that's what capitalism is all about, baby!

If people lived in the United States by the formula you espouse, this truly wouldn't be a place you'd want to live.

We have a government that we set up to build a country that is a desirable place to live. One that has clean air and water. One that refuses to allow people to die from lack of medical attention. One that insists that children grow up with a basic education and hopefully affords them the opportunity for a higher education. We are a country where the people can depend on the government to oversee greedy corporations with no conscience and no qualms about polluting the country and taking advantage of their workers.

You only see the government as bad and a vehicle for taking your hard-earned money away.

Fortunately most of us know that the government is necessary and we are grateful for it. We understand that we should all pay a fair proportion so that the government can do all of the things that must be done, by the government, to ensure that we enjoy the best possible place on earth to live.

You seem to want us to run the goverment on donations or just abolish the government altogether. Your idea of government boils down to the fact that any taxes that you must pay to run it, smacks of socialism.

You're one strange character.

Pattygreen,

Are you one of those people that are Amish? If you are I am so sorry I didn't catch it until I read this post. But if that is the case and you practice ideas such as you Amish do.....why are you sneaking on the computer at these weird hours when you know full well you must be violating some tradition of modern day creature comforts. I take back the stuff I said and thought. Now I get it.

Please stick to the debate . Feel free to argue your point, but refrain from personal attacks.

I am not saying to get rid of the government, I'm saying that it's TOO big now. It needs to slash something and pare down and step back some. Government is a good thing, when it's not wasteful. Yes, we need roads and we need some regulations. Why must you see it is all or nothing? I thought I was being clear about what I feel about government. Come on now, you must admit that the spending and control has gotten out of hand over the years. Giving 8000. to everyone who buys a home and 4000. to everyone who buys a new car so long as they junk their old one? WOW! I can't afford to buy these big ticket items for people. (and yes, when they take MY tax dollars to give to someone else to purchase a home, then I feel as though I contributed to the cost of their home) When I bought my home, my husband had to work a full time job during the day, and then he did an overnight security guard job that kept him gone from me and his son for 4 months straight so we could save every penny for the down payment we needed of $6,000. (this was 28 years ago) We really wanted our own home and sacrificed some to get one. Today, the government just GIVES a person that $8,000.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by pattygreen

I am not saying to get rid of the government, I'm saying that it's TOO big now. It needs to slash something and pare down and step back some. Government is a good thing, when it's not wasteful. Yes, we need roads and we need some regulations. Why must you see it is all or nothing? I thought I was being clear about what I feel about government. Come on now, you must admit that the spending and control has gotten out of hand over the years. Giving 8000. to everyone who buys a home and 4000. to everyone who buys a new car so long as they junk their old one? WOW! I can't afford to buy these big ticket items for people. (and yes, when they take MY tax dollars to give to someone else to purchase a home, then I feel as though I contributed to the cost of their home) When I bought my home, my husband had to work a full time job during the day, and then he did an overnight security guard job that kept him gone from me and his son for 4 months straight so we could save every penny for the down payment we needed of $6,000. (this was 28 years ago) We really wanted our own home and sacrificed some to get one. Today, the government just GIVES a person that $8,000.

You are very selective in your outrage of government spending. I can't afford the nearly $3000 dollars the needless and unnecessary war in Iraq has cost me. (and each American). It didn't create any jobs except for those no-bid contractor friends of cheney. And even more importantly, the cost of the 4000+ lives lost in Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD and was sold to the American public and congress, who reeling from 9/11, was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt (or be dubbed a traitor).

Additionally:

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48

trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

You are very selective in your outrage of government spending. I can't afford the nearly $3000 dollars the needless and unnecessary war in Iraq has cost me. (and each American). It didn't create any jobs except for those no-bid contractor friends of cheney. And even more importantly, the cost of the 4000+ lives lost in Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD and was sold to the American public and congress, who reeling from 9/11, was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt (or be dubbed a traitor).

Additionally:

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48

trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

'War' is one of the things that the government needs to pay for, and every American needs to support it because it is in defense of your very being. Just as the military personal give thier all for freedom and protection for America, we need to give our all financially to them and their cause. If the war was necessary or not is up to debate.

Your quote: I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

I agree with you here. The spending of the politicians in Washington is out of control.

your quote: At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

I disagree with this. WHY should we help the auto and housing industry? Let them fail. Other private businesses fail without the help of the government, why shouldn't they? Also, neither helped save or create jobs. Unemployment has risen past 10% now.