Porky, my main point of contention and disbelief was your assertion or implied assertion that income should be directly tied and only tied to difficulty of the job (How about education expenses? Replaceability? Experience?), and that it is somehow unfair that someone that makes less money needs to sacrifice more for health insurance than someone who makes more money and thus has more disposable income. See my last post again if you need more clarification as to what I'm referring to and why. Should I have to pay 1 dollar per gallon for gas, and someone that makes 100 grand a year pay 5 dollars per gallon? Does that make ANY economic sense?

"Porforis" wrote:

"Porforis" wrote:

Basically, sacrifice to get insurance. Wealthy people work hard to get where they are, but why should a middle class citizen have to sacrifice more in his life because his job pays less even though his job might be much harder to do.

You say don't get cable tv as an example and I say to the rich, don't buy your fancy cars or give out vacations as bonuses and instead use the money properly in your business. Play time can wait.

Obviously, people are living in houses they can't afford and people spend to much (tv as your example) but so does the rich. They waste as much money if not more than anyone else. Well, logically, they do waste more money because they have more of it to waste. Yes, they can create jobs, but they can also be careless with their expenses. No doubt that has occurred over the last decade.

Just because he labels Obama a socialist (which he is at best) doesn't mean anything about Bush.. Bush isn't in power any more, no need to point out his poor presidency.

"Formo" wrote:

You really cannot do much worse than a socialist that I personally believe, wants to destroy the fundamentals of the country.

"dyeah_gb" wrote:

He pretty clearly labels Obama the worst possible president here, but the criteria he gives for doing so apply equally as well to Bush. But he ignores the fact that Bush trampled on the Constitution and acted like a tyrant in ways few other presidents have dared to try (LBJ came close, with his literal physical assaults on legislators in the halls of Congress). Obama, by contrast, has worked within the system, letting Congress take control of the legislative process, and even though his pet policies are fundamentally flawed, you have to respect him for showing Congress -- and the Constitution -- that respect.

Labeling him the worst president while ignoring the flagrant abuses of Bush -- which were not only socialistic but in many cases far more detrimental to the constitutional system of checks and balances -- is to invalidate his argument. I have no problem labeling Bush a much worse president because he spit on the Constitution in the name of freedom. I'd far rather have an honest liberal, even a socialist, in power than a two-faced, hypocritical tyrant on a religious crusade. I respect a man who tells me he's my enemy and shows me the sword in his hand over a man who calls himself my friend even as he's twisting his dagger a little deeper in my back.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: