Would you give up your tax cut if?

I like the idea but I think an idea is all it will ever be. In the status quo I prefer that deficit concerns are addressed, regardless of the size of the cut.

I'd be willing to bet that if there could be an honest poll of the American public, the majority would favor universal health care over a tax cut. And I'm be one of those voting that way.

Will it ever happen? No way...

In a word, yes.

absolutely yes

Yes. And I don't think it is unrealistic thinking to suppose we could make significant moves towards Universal Health Care.

I think the tax cut is disingenuous -- and probably a bit hypocritical -- although I understand politicians of both parties trying to play to their constituencis.

Good thread -- excellent question, au. I hope you get lots of activity here.

Bi-Polar Bear



That is a good slogan for the Democrates to use in 04

Honestly? If I get a 300 dollar check in the mail, I'll probably spend it (as opposed to mailing it back to Washington with a note begging someone to use it for better purposes). If the powers that be were sane enough to use the money up front to make healthcare more accessible universally, I'd be all for it.

The way you posed your question, it seemed to me that I needed to make that distinction.

...and could you expound a little on your "whore" slogan?

Snood

and could you expound a little on your "whore" slogan?

Was talking about Bush and his administration.
Verily I say unto thee if you vote for a whore {Bush] and he gives you {Fill in what you will-} , would you vote for him again.

Hey buddy, I'm workin' this side of the street

I want my tax cut. Anyone who doesn't want theirs, just send it on to me...

I'm glad you wrote that New Haven, because there are many people who feel this way, and I'd like to know a bit more about that point of view. Is every tax cut better than a gov't service that might be provided in its stead?

I have health insurance now, but I know that if I were laid off, I wouldn't have any coverage. And I know people who are out of work and who aren't covered, as well as people whose jobs don't provide health insurance. Are tax cuts so all-important that people (including children) should do without health care?

And, dare I say it, isn't it a little selfish to want more money while others lack something important?

[OK, I'm being a bit argumentative here, but I really do want to hear the counter argument...]

"And, dare I say it, isn't it a little selfish to want more money while others lack something important?"

D'artagnan-
conservatives love to hear questions like that, so they can accuse you of being a socialist, of wanting a handout, of other dastardly things including hating America. Because baby, getting more is what America is all about!!

I'd vote yes. I pay my health care out of pocket, my tax cut doesn't amount to diddly.

No.


The Fourth Musketeer wrote:

Unequivocally, yes.

As for it being "selfish" to want your own money back, there is nothing wrong with a little desire.

One must realize that one must WORK in this society to attain what one needs.

I have stated countless numbers of times, I am in complete agreement that we should provide safety nets for the have nots, not hammocks.

If I am not mistaken the US is the only industrialized nation that does not have universal medical coverage. And we are supposed to be an enlightened society. The cry as always is that social programs are socialism in action. If caring for the welfare of those who cannot do for themselves is socialistic than all I can say it's better than what we have now.

That max, is bullshit of the highest order. I work like a maniac and my insurance premium is 1100.00 dollars a month and that is sub standard state mandated insurance because of my son who is disabled. When he aged off my policy, he had to go on medicaid because he is almost unemployable and his medication alone at full price is 900.00 per month. I can't keep him on my policy because he's out of school and aged off, but because he's my dependent I get no reduction in premium, even without any services.

If the economy gets any worse I may not be able to pay the premium any longer, and will have to buy insurance just for the kids and not me or squinney. At 54, that's not a good thing.

In this society I work my freaking ass off, have outrageous amounts of tax withheld, and still have crappy health care, second rate school systems, declining services across the board, and I am not alone.

By all means, eliminate services. Also then eliminate taxes. Then most of us can provide our families with what we need, and the Bushs' of the world can have a yard sale next time they want to flex their muscles overseas, instead of having to have a yard sale to buy gym or music equipment for our local schools.

We don't pay taxes, the government FORCES us to give them a huge amount of the money we earn, and in return spends it on building (if you believe it) new infrastructures for the Middle East, while at home ours goes to ****.

Some deal.

the conservative agenda is that tax is for guns not butter and as Leona Helmsly said "the rich don't pay tax"

Bear: You are smart enough to figure out that the bloat, corruption, and red tape that would come with a "governmental service" more than offsets the good that service does to those intended to receive it.

Should everyone be offered basic medical services at a fair price?

Of course.

I am as yet unconvinced that it should be the government handling it, however.

max we are screwed by a parnership of corrupt government and corrupt private business all belonging to a new club called the USA Inc. Most of the current administration are charter members and planners.

The line between government services and private providers is becoming more and more blurred and it is purposeful, evil and intentional. IMO