Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Again you are basing your argument on a flawed idea. Medications are not tested at the tax payers expense, they are not tested to have a "relatively" good chance they're safe, they are tested in order to avoid lawsuits, the free market at work.
I think you're making a flawed argument. Why should anyone believe testing would be done at all at considerable expense if it wasn't required? The testing may not be at taxpayer's expense but the standards that are to be met certainly are as well as enforcement.
Tested to avoid lawsuits? You mean in the TAXPAYER SUPPORTED legal system? You know, the legal system that those who opt out of paying taxes will not be allowed to use?
Yet we don't see a mass exodus of them going to live off the grid and not have those worries, do we?
I believe those who feel that way should absolutely be allowed to opt out of society, with conditions.
For example: People can choose to not pay taxes and SS but when they're sick? Sorry, they're not allowed to shop at the stores where the medications have been tested and they have a relatively good chance they're safe. Those people will have to shop at the corner where who knows what you're getting? But after all, they've opted out of the society that pays to ensure some degree of safety, their choice, right? And their doctors? Sorry, they won't be allowed to shop among those licensed by government standards, they'll just have to deal with the Dr FeelGoods of the world and take their chances.
Apply those standards everywhere and let these people opt out, let's see how long they last.
Those are the same people who came to America and made it the greatest country in the world.
I think you're making a flawed argument. Why should anyone believe testing would be done at all at considerable expense if it wasn't required? The testing may not be at taxpayer's expense but the standards that are to be met certainly are as well as enforcement.
Tested to avoid lawsuits? You mean in the TAXPAYER SUPPORTED legal system? You know, the legal system that those who opt out of paying taxes will not be allowed to use?
Wrong, the standards that are met are paid for by the pharmacy industry that has to pay fees to the government in order to bring their pescriptions to market.
How is the tax payers supporting the lawsuit legal system? Do you understand that it cost money to file lawsuits? (about $100 to just file a civil suit in a local magistrate) The civil legal system is funded by those that use it. Even the criminal system more and more is also being funded by the criminals.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
How is the tax payers supporting the lawsuit legal system? Do you understand that it cost money to file lawsuits? (about $100 to just file a civil suit in a local magistrate) The civil legal system is funded by those that use it. Even the criminal system more and more is also being funded by the criminals.
Please supply some FACTS for a change, please show us exactly how all those fancy buildings have been erected, staffed, maintained, etc. by such things as a whopping $100 to file a suit that may take a number of man-days in a heated/cooled, lighted facility to settle. That $100 must go real far towards paying that, right?
Please supply some FACTS for a change, please show us exactly how all those fancy buildings have been erected, staffed, maintained, etc. by such things as a whopping $100 to file a suit that may take a number of man-days in a heated/cooled, lighted facility to settle. That $100 must go real far towards paying that, right?
I will try really hard to not laugh at you for thinking that there is one lawsuit filed a year in this country.
p.s. Americans spend several billion a year in filing fees for lawsuits. Number of lawsuits last year was 15,000,000, and while some of them last weeks, others last 10 minutes (or never take place due to default judgments). If you would ever look at a county budget, you would recognize that the most courts are self sufficient.
Locally our county brought in $9,214,000 in fees + $3,993,000 in fines, and spent $12,682,500, so our court department is actually profitable ($524,500)
Did I miss where Berkeley residents had opted out and aren't paying taxes?
Last I read whatever they decided about the Marines was voted on by a democratic process. Are you casting your vote against that process?
Personally, I don't live in Berkeley and don't give a rat's behind how they choose to run their city.
Don't get all huffy. You were speculating on choosing government services a la carte. I happened to mention a particularly egregious example of how absurd that would be.
Last I read whatever they decided about the Marines was voted on by a democratic process. Are you casting your vote against that process?
Hey, I have an idea.. we should put gay marriages up to a vote, and let the results stand.. ooh wait, we already tried that in California, when individuals didnt like the outcome of the "democratic process", they sideline it by seeking the vote illegal.
While I certainly don't agree with many of Bush decisions and policies, I wonder if he (Stillwater) thinks that 52 consecutive months of job growth was "nightmarish?"
Bush has seen 2 recessions on his watch, though I wouldn't blame the first one on him. The boom of the mid-2000s was superficial. It was a huge party while it lasted, but there is no way that would have been sustainable. It was very similar to the boom of the 1920s and we all know how that ended up.
If you consider working 80 hours for 40 hours pay "doing very well" I'd say the cause of your raging bitterness is very apparent.
That's stupid. Spend a moment looking into the tax burden and legislated costs of doing business. Either you keep your money in the business or you pay around 50% to the government... that's where the 80/40 figures comes from... So yeah, I'm pretty bitter that socialists robbed me of so much.
It must be nice to have so little motivation that you don't get out and be your own man (or woman, as the case may be.) I can't imagine what it's like to live like that...
Quote:
And executives who agree to union contracts dont do that with free-will?
It's under what's called duress. That's why the unions are anti-American.
Quote:
YOU are the one claiming to champion free-will. It's apparent you only believe in it when it suits your pupose. Ever consider that when workers CHOOSE to join a union they're exercisong YOUR championed free-will?
Are you serious? By that rationale, choosing to mug someone is acting in your own free-will and is just.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
Hasn't trickle-down economics been finally proven to destroy economies?
No. Centralized investment (locals investing in big corps, etc.) has caused strikes to our economy.
Quote:
How much more can the neo-con men in government right now rob the middle class from their wages and redistribute it
Well, the "neo" is a response to leftism with a move to the left. What do you think is going to happen? The Dems demand socialism and the other side isn't going to fight it?
How much more will the left demand is the question. When Dem socialist demands cease, the "neo" side of the conservative side will disappear.
Quote:
to the rich and then at the same time shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. Not only are the wages of an average person are reduced but having to pay taxes from the reduced wage (So the wealthy can keep more of their money to keep the economy moving?) is even more of an insult.
That's how it always works. The left demands too much, the right figures out a way to screw those demanding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
People can choose to not pay taxes and SS but when they're sick?
Well, welcome to the Republican party. That would be an organization then, not a government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
Bush has seen 2 recessions on his watch, though I wouldn't blame the first one on him. The boom of the mid-2000s was superficial. It was a huge party while it lasted, but there is no way that would have been sustainable. It was very similar to the boom of the 1920s and we all know how that ended up.
Yes, but this time, the dollar's being left teetering and the tax rate is already high. See what happens this time around...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
