Campy

I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised by the results of this ABC poll. Perhaps I've underestimated the value most Americans place on civil liberties. Full story.

That's where Teresa and I honeymooned. Expensive but worth every penny. Our favorites places were Horseshoe and Elbow Beach and The Frog and Onion Pub at the Royal Naval Dockyard. St George's was pretty cool too. I can't wait to go back.

The Constitution is vague intentionally, and the husband does have the right as set by judicial precedent.

Highways may not be the best example. Privately owned turnpikes were tried before and resulted in exhorbitant tolls and poor quality roadways.

I was looking for the "I don't know, but let's keep the government out of people's private affairs" option.

Truly.

Just in the 2 examples I used, I don't see how it couldn't fall to the taxpayers - Perhaps not "as" taxpayers, but as consumers. Healthcare costs will rise even more to compensate for the healthcare provided to those unable to pay for it - kinda' like how we all pay the literal price for shoplifting. With increased homelessness, the societal ills that go along with it (increased theft and violent crime, larger amount of unemployable labor, malnutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, etc) will ultimately end up increasing as well. I'm not altogether altruistic about this stuff. It's just that I'm not sold on the idea of how allowing that many more people to fall through the cracks (for lack of a better term) will not ultimately be more expensive and less efficient than current SS.

There's the catch-22. As much as I dislike it, those who are irresponsible or those who are uber-aggresive with their privatized SS accounts will end up being a burden on society - uninsured healthcare and homelessness just to name a couple of examples. The burden that would inevitably fall to taxpayers to support those people would be much larger than it is now IMO.

No offense to you bobblehead, but I stop reading when I see Weiler's name in the by-line.

I'm not sure I follow

The right to die with dignity is long overdue - if only we can get the government out of our most personal choices and decisions. Assisted suicide in cases such as this should be legal.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but you did pretty well for pop-quiz! While I agree with the principle that SS is not run very well, I can't help but wonder if the burdens placed on society when the irresponsible age would outweigh the benefits gained via privatization... Just thinking out loud, I guess.

That's not accurate. Bledsoe was sacked 13 times on 3rd down. He was sacked 11 times on 1st down and 13 on 2nd down. If you're trying to relieve TH of responsibility, that's not gonna' get you there.

I was thinking the tax rate would remain constant to balance the budget and possibly pay down some of the debt. The tax rate can be cut and the budget balanced only through cuts in a lot of programs. What/where would you cut?

Without deductions, how would the decrease in charitable donations be offset?

I won't argue issues of faith because it's deeply personal and strictly between that individual and God. That being said, I can't say I maintain that belief.

KRC in '08!

No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact, I'm saying the opposite. The poor would pay a much greater percentage of his low income on our fictitious milk tax leaving less money for other puchases, which are essentially contributions to to the economy (survival goods, luxury items, and lastly, investments). The wealthy can afford bear a bigger tax burdern without adversely effecting their contributions to the economy in terms of consumption, and there simply aren't enough of them, and they can't just consume enough, to offset the loss of the majority poor/lower income people's contribution to the economy. You aren't the first person to have the consumption-tax idea, and I'm only passing on what I understand the argument against that to be, and frankly, I can see where they were coming from.

I understand what you're saying. To play devil's advocate, there are many more people at 20K than at 1M, and I think the belief was that the millionaires simply can't consume enough to offset the much greater number of 20Ks. I think many claimed that belief was reinforced by the wealthy industrialists being unable to carry the economy after the Crash of '29.

It's the same reason I prayed for my mom to die after she was reduced to a PVS after complications from the removal of a brain tumor. Luckily, it didn't take her long to go "home." In PVS cases, the suffering may not be pain and anguish, but it involves a situation where being alive isn't living. I believe that my mother would be better off in the company of God in heaven than being kept alive here without really living. I generally don't throw my faith around because it's my personal relationship with God, but that's what I meant, not only in the hypothetical about my Teresa, but in the cases of Theresa Schiavo, my mother, and all PVS patients, provided "going home" was their wish.

I think the argument against that is that people with a lower income would pay a disproportionate percentage of their income as tax. If a person's salary is 1M, 75K, or 20K per year, they would all pay the same dollar-for-dollar amount of tax on, say milk or baby formula, and that would place an unfair burden on the poor. I'm pretty sure that's what led to the staggered income tax system.

Believe you me, I'm not trying to do that. But I do know that I would rather be dead than in a PVS, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that others would feel the same. I also believe that if God forbid my Teresa were to end up in a PVS, I would do everything within my power and as long as it took to end her suffering and send her on her way home, regardless of the thoughts and opinion of chuckleheads who felt they knew her, what she wanted, or what my motivation might be, as she's told me that's what she'd want, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that another man would do the same for his wife.

Yes, I can rule that out. He read 30,000 pages of medical notes, reviewed all of the court cases and worked with her on a daily basis. He was required by legislation to assess her situation, ensure that she received due process, and submit a report on his findings. Did you try to look for excerpts of the interview? Of course you didn't. Either way you'd attack it just because it didn't jibe with your narrow opinion (reference the quote above). I really don't care to carry on a discussion with people who are unable to consider that there may be truths other than those to which they cling. Believe what you want, your opinion is your own, and it's rather obvious that the introduction of fact to contradict those opinions are not welcome.

According to her Guardian at Law, she likely had an eating disorder, and through the treatments from the fertility clinic they were using, it was too much. Her heart stopped and she collapsed. She was resuscitated but only after severe brain damage occurred, and there were no justified allegations of abuse.

Now that's a bit of a reach, afterall, he could write a book about it today. Her parents could do the same. Big deal. But it is fun to watch more and more tenuous arguments spring up while people continue to backpedal - instead of just recognizing that there may be important information that they either didn't know or didn't consider.