“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
But really, that distinction is pretty meaningless. There certainly are some things that I would definitely see as a tax, but not a fine. Income taxes for example. But whether, for example, we call a charge that we give to people that pollute a "fine" or a "tax" doesn't really matter, does it? IMO the political debate in this country is far, far, too hung up on meaningless distinctions. If we give a $1,000 subsidy to corn growers, one whole group of people is up in arms because they hate subsidies. But, if we call it a "tax break" instead, then those same people all support it because they like tax breaks... But it is the same exact damn thing! Same deal here. Why would somebody support it if it were called a "fine", but oppose it if it is called a "tax"? It makes no sense.
Last edited by danarhea; 07-01-12 at 10:59 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
I think it's worth noting that Roberts also sided with the liberals on the Stolen Valor case, and the Arizona immigration case. Perhaps he simply isn't the hardcore conservative that many people feared/hoped he was, and is more in the Anthony Kennedy mold.
Last edited by Kandahar; 07-01-12 at 11:16 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I am more concerned with the nation as a whole instead of an individual who is supposed to take care of their self.
Secondly, I find that while you profess good intent, the end results are not good for the whole, but evil.
And a person of the type we are speaking, wants it for their own good and is therefore selfish and greedy and without a care of who has to pay for it. They fit your stated "They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person.".
But being forced to do so is wrong. No matter how you look at it, forcing it is wrong.
Because what you espouse is harmful to the nation.
If they can't provide for their own, or survive off the kindness of others, they are a burden and the nation does not need them.
Eliminating the teat suckers before they are a burden would be a higher return and far more beneficial to the nation
And that is what it is.
The expenditures are coming back to haunt those nations. It is not sustainable with anything near the quality of care that is received in our current system.
But as I see you would rather burden our future generations. Not only with a piss poor health care system that will cost far to much for what is provided, but one that allows the unproductive and to survive and reproduce.
Yep. That is a real winner there.
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.