john5746

I think neural networks and such are promising, but biological robots will probably bring self-aware, thinking beings. All kinds of ethical horror stories there.

I think neural networks and such are promising, but biological robots will probably bring self-aware, thinking beings. All kinds of ethical horror stories there.

I understand where you are coming from I guess. I am surrounded by Bush lovers. I am sick of them complaining about liberals. I am not really all that liberal, but I am so irritated, it makes me want to be. People who voted for Kerry are called 'godless', homo-lovers, unpatriotic etc. It goes both ways.

I understand where you are coming from I guess. I am surrounded by Bush lovers. I am sick of them complaining about liberals. I am not really all that liberal, but I am so irritated, it makes me want to be. People who voted for Kerry are called 'godless', homo-lovers, unpatriotic etc. It goes both ways.

Libertarians - aren't they the ones who get creamed every election? I agree with some of their issues. Of course I want lower taxes and less spending. But I haven't seen any evidence that suggests lowering taxes will cut government spending. When Reagan and Bush did it, the thinking is that it will spurn the economy, which will increase tax revenue. So, if your main idea is to reduce spending, I don't think this will do it.

Libertarians - aren't they the ones who get creamed every election? I agree with some of their issues. Of course I want lower taxes and less spending. But I haven't seen any evidence that suggests lowering taxes will cut government spending. When Reagan and Bush did it, the thinking is that it will spurn the economy, which will increase tax revenue. So, if your main idea is to reduce spending, I don't think this will do it.

Why don't you give some positive things you think this tax shift will do. It won't stop government spending, so what is the main benefit? Who gets most of the benefit? I do agree that in general, people will spend less, or try to spend money in such a way as to avoid the tax. The wealthy, naturally, will be able to curb their spending more if they want. Then, you would see either higher sales taxes, or taxes on savings - as mentioned in previous posts.

Why don't you give some positive things you think this tax shift will do. It won't stop government spending, so what is the main benefit? Who gets most of the benefit? I do agree that in general, people will spend less, or try to spend money in such a way as to avoid the tax. The wealthy, naturally, will be able to curb their spending more if they want. Then, you would see either higher sales taxes, or taxes on savings - as mentioned in previous posts.

Nope. They don't need books, college, medicine, heart surgery, etc. Why if they get sick, it costs more than they make to fix them. Lets just let them die. I mean the rich NEED yachts, stocks, etc. I know where people are going with this. I don't like bums living off the dole either. We are talking about people who work and pay taxes. A graduated tax rate makes sense. The trick is how graduated it should be.

Direct medical costs associated with smoking are around $50 billion a year.1 Productivity and lost earnings because of smoking-related disease and premature deaths cost an additional $50 billion a year.2 It is estimated that Medicare will spend $800 billion over the next 20 years caring for people with smoking-related illnesses.3 The most recent analysis by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that in 1993 approximately $2.06 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking for each of the 24 billion packs of cigarettes sold.4 This is a big impact on society. I like live and let live myself, but unless smokers waive the "right" to healthcare, I am opposed to smoking. Marijuana would be less of a problem than tobacco - not as addictive.

Was that quote from a MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) conference?

Yeah, you are correct about the 10 year old, no doubt! I said that tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, speeding isn't a good comparison. Sex might be a good one, except everyone can live very well without smoking. I think most people who smoke would quit if it were easy to quit. Same with alcoholics.

I vote yes. Suffering, terminally ill people shouldn't continue to suffer for our morality.

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America -- though she doesn't deserve it -- a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly. Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you. Bob Jones.

I agree with Mattd. We need to concentrate on the spending. Shifting taxes still screws people. Chadn - don't equate wealth with hard work and poverty with laziness. Wealth is usually obtained through leverage of other people's work. This is ok, not evil. What this means is that to obtain this wealth, you rely on people and the society they live in. Bill Gates has a lot more to gain in keeping America economically strong than I do. I am not tring to punish him, his company provides jobs, etc. But, as smart and hardworking as he is, he couldn't do it without society. I couldn't live as I do either, but I could come closer to my standard of living than he could come to within his without society. Therefore, he benefits more from society. So, he can pay a higher rate to keep society functioning.

If Bill Gates lived alone on an island, how well would he be doing? How about Brittany Spears? Michael Jordan?

Well, insurance premiums go up for everyone. In the case of smoking, it pollutes the air that I breath. If it weren't legal, I would be against making it legal. Since it is already legal and we have many addicts, I think we should start with 10 year olds and tell them if they start smoking, they will not be able to have health insurance. Hit them in the pocket. Raise the taxes on cigarettes and use it to get people off of them. People choose to start smoking, usually when they are young. They get addicted and find it very difficult to quit. It isn't that much of a choice.

It would be interesting to see how much the costs of the income tax and sales taxes. I don't understand why a flat tax is needed to be simple though. Isn't an elevated tax simple? A flat tax of any form will SHIFT the burden towards the lower income bracket, pure and simple. The wealthy benefit most from society. They should pay a higher rate. They get a higher rate of pay increase, actually save money to invest in capital where they get a higher rate of return, not to mention tax shelter. Increases in healthcare insurance, education, etc. has a small affect on them. If someone tells you they will give you a million, but that you must pay 60% in taxes, you still want the million don't you?

Maybe he would bomb abortion clinics, I don't know. Maybe he would be pro-gun, pro military, pro capitalist. My point for bringing it up is 'christian' values are not a part of any political group.

Haven't heard it. You would think the media and the DNC would be all over that one if it were true.

"You cannot be a sincere, committed born-again believer who takes the Bible seriously and vote for a pro-choice, anti-family candidate." Jerry Falwell. The Nazi's were behind Bush - you can believe that. Most intelligent people can seperate the candidates from the supporters.