South Dakota Bill Would Require All Citizens To Buy A Gun

that is your opinion

We wanted healthcare reform and we got it. Am I disappointed that is didn't go far enough, of course. But please don’t insult people with your nonsense.

 

Since my 3 year old grandson never buys anything - he doesn't pay taxes.

There are folks in America who pay zero in income tax, but they would be hard pressed not to pay taxes on goods and services.

 

It's acceptable to use tax payer money to mock the other party?

Wow, I prefer my taxes be used to do something useful. Sorry if you disagree.

 

US, which has lots of guns: Ave. Life Expectancy 77/76(F/M)
Japan, which has almost no guns: Ave Life Expectancy 80/80(F/M)

Life expectancy basically doubled once modern medicine came about, especially due to much higher survival rate of infants.

While I hate guns, I have generally tolerated the gun rights people. But equating health care with gun-owning makes me want to puke.

 

I never participated in surveys for the pollsters. They need to start asking more citizens in houston.

 

Odd. I've never owned a gun and I'm alive.

I'd probably be dead without healthcare after my appendicitis.

Seems pretty different to me, but hey, maybe losing their guns is akin to death for the 2nd Amendment alarmists.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer

Good read.

 

So, if someone buys a pair of socks in Texas, they don't pay tax? If they buy a car they don't pay tax? Anyone in this country who buys something will pay taxes. As I said, there are folks who don't pay income tax, bit even they pay some sort of tax.

 

guns?? those dakotas are already enough of a nuisance armed with keyboards alone

 

As will anyone who lives anywhere. But apparently those taxes don't count.

As for the original point, it's funny in that it misses the entire conservative argument. All these states suing against Obamacare are basing their argument on the idea that the *federal* government can't require individuals to buy something. They don't make the argument - at all - that states are prevented from doing so. So really, this bill misses the mark because it wouldn't be the Federal government doing any mandating anyway. As we've seen from Massachusetts, the idea that a state can require it is already well accepted.

 

People might not like it for different reason. As mentions, there are many in the far left who were hoping for a single payer system. And more liberals who were disappointed that the Dems caved in on the public option. When polled, they say they're against the bill because they think it didn't go far enough, but that doesn't mean they want it repealed.

In reality, only 20% want it fully repealed. Others would like to see certain provisions repealed but when asked about individual provisions, only 11% wanted the individual mandate repealed and no other provision got more than 1%. 14% want full repeal but can't name a single provision that they'd most like to see repealed.

Despite what Republicans in congress say, there isn't widespread support for repeal of HCR.

 

By that standard, everyone gets more from the government than they put in. If not for government services like roads, infrastructure, the treasury, etc, none of us would have any income. So the value of what you get by paying for government is, at the very least, equivalent to 100% of your income - not to mention all the health benefits you get from clean air, clean water, food safety, etc.

 

Nahhh, i don't pay tax on my socks in Minnesota.

 

Agreed. Taking out more than you pay isn't right. Taking without paying at all is even worse. I wonder how we could diminished this problem when it comes to health care???

I've got it! We can make everyone carry insurance coverage so that no one will be able to mooch off of the system. Surely, the Republicans will be all over this great idea for stopping health care welfare.

 

Let's use an example of someone who makes $50,000 per year and (for argument's sake) after deductions, credits, etc, ends up paying $8,000 in income tax. It could be argued that they get back in benefits more than they take in. After all, they use government funded roads, get protected by a government funded military, maybe have a government subsidized home loan. There are many programs that could conceivably eat up that $8000 in taxes.

So, by your argument, that working family man pays no taxes.

 

Or if the government has the ability to multiply the returns on your money. We spend $3 trillion per year on a government that allows us, as a country, to generate around $12 trillion in wealth each year.