Disclaimer

Actually sometimes you don't even have to eat much and you can be fat. Thyroid issues are huge in society. Some are slow and some are fast. Hell there's issues of people being overweight then their thyroid gets fucked up and then they keep losing weight no matter how much they eat. The reverse also happens which is more relevant now.

True, but you can be FAT and FIT. You can be THIN and UNFIT too. The only difference is you can tell an UNFIT fat person from a FIT one. It's much harder with skinny people.

Coming from an ex-fatty (which, it seems I'm working my way back up to being one), no matter what your situation, it's your lifestyle that has to be healthy. Most people who are obese (due to thyroid/metabolism/any other excuse or issue you can come up with), still don't live a generally healthy lifestyle.

Then they'll come up with a genetic link to wealth. "I can't help being fat, I'm predisposed to be rich! Don't hurt me, starving poor people -- please!"

The rich fatties won't last long once the skinny people start chasing them through the streets.

Just wait until making people skinny backfires, when the food runs out -- then the fatties are the only ones left. All us 'fit' people are dead. Ironic... unless we start making 'soylent green' from fat people. Yumm!

We need more drag racers in here! Only 3 threads!

Good point... how many drag guys do we have? I've been going since I was 4, racing since I was 15, and doing it on a bike since I was 18. Norwalk, National Trails, and Milan are all the tracks I've run at, but I've been all around the country and Canada with my dad -- S/ST 362A.

You'll find me out at Norwalk most Wednesday nights.

Isaac -- I began watching the video and I could barely stomach the slanted, nonfactual information in the first FIVE minutes. You don't watch films like that and accept it as gospel do you? Hell, I like Micheal Moore films, but even I know his facts are skewed and he has an agenda...but, at least they're FACTS. This film is blatantly misleading.

In the first five minutes of the video -- which, I'll go out on a limb here, is the setup and premise of the entire rest of the 1h 49min debacle -- the narrator says that the 16th Amendment was never ratified (but the public was lied to that it was) and therefore illegal. Utterly, and completely wrong! And this argument has been shot down in court over and over and over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It also makes mention of the "EVIL" Federal Reserve Act. Do you REALLY feel we're worse off as a country for establishing and regulating currency? Honestly... Most people would tend to agree that they'd rather go to the store, or a motorcycle dealership, or bank and use currency, rather than trying to trade actual precious metal, heads of cattle, or bushels of grain -- please, you can't be serious.

I don't know how much more of this video I can suffer through -- it's just plain WRONG.

--------

You might want to check out these additional links for more information on Aaron Russo (the filmmaker) and a review of his film. Since he was on the hook for about $2M in IRS liens, it seems like this movie was an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophesy:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6099842-7.html (REVIEW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo (Read the section on his political career)

::sigh:: but valley is soooo far away.... ugh. Maybe i'll make it out there sometime w/ my o' lady once she learns to ride.

There's always a bike nite at the QSL near me (Detroit/254 and I-90 in Sheffield). There was basically ZERO sportbike presence.

Easy answer. I am a law abiding citizen. Home owners insurance is law unless you can prove 'financial responsibility.' I cannot for my house so I carry insurance....If someone is going to pay me a death benefit and I don't have to contribute I am all for it. Here is the kicker... AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COME AT THE EXPENSE OF MY FELLOW TAXPAYER!!!

I know it isn't the only reason people are unemployed. One main reason is lack of education. But I feel a big reason is the welfare system is just enabling people to sit on their asses.

And I have fallen on hard times. I have been laid off on occasion. That is why I have a savings account. I hold nobody responsible for my misfortune. I also don't live outside my means. Plainly put' date=' I own 90% of the stuff in and around my home. I have excellent credit and still have a very low debt to income ratio. I refuse to put myself in a situation that would put me at the mercy of the bank. [/quote'] I also do not live beyond my means, but many people don't have that luxury, nor do they have the self-discipline or willpower to be like that. These people will never change, welfare or not. But, providing these people with a minimum standard of living benefits society as a whole and prevents rampant crime. I just take solace in the fact that I do live a better lifestyle than most through my hard work. I'm not rich, but I live a lot better than those on welfare.

It is the fact that I am being FORCED to pay for something I refuse to use. I don't need or want government assistance.

But' date=' you aren't (if you read the link to Obama's example plan) -- it's like your car/cycle insurance, you just have to prove your somehow financially responsible for your own health care. You dont' HAVE to pay the gov't for it.

Then explain to me your definition of freedom. Apparently doing what you want with what is yours isn't the right one. So, enlighten me.

My point was merely that your scope of 'freedom' is way too narrow than making choices with your dollars - voting with your dollars = capitalism (and economic system). Freedom is MUCH broader than just money, its a concept, its an ideology. Having the gov't grab a few bills really doesn't impact your freedoms (in general) in a drastic way. Yea, you resent the government for it, but it's a necessary evil to have some of the things we as Americans enjoy.

Who's naive now?

Referring to my IRS link' date=' if you dove into the PDF -- you would see that there have been MANY judgments against people claiming the income tax is illegal. So, unless your video sets some compelling precedent where it proves people can no longer be prosecuted for not paying income tax, there's probably numerous holes and exceptions in the video. Just my guess, I haven't seen it yet, but I've been down the road with these arguments before. People are still going to JAIL and being FINED for income tax evasion. If it's illegal or unconstitutional, why hasn't the supreme court struck it down? And, it's not SLAVE labor, the income tax provides one of the most basic services we have in this country -- military defense (defense meaning PROTECTION, not invasion -- this is key)

No, I think only one of us did well in Political Science and Sociology. The other one of us was always in trouble for telling his professors they were idiots.

You'd be surprised, we're probably in the same boat. I never took either class.

You guys must've done REALLY well in Political Science and Sociology classes in College huh? I HATED THEM! C's in those classes because I couldn't finish my readings because I was so bored with them.

You 2 seem really advance in this topic.

Far from it, I had TWO free electives during my 4 years, and I spent them on Cost Accounting and Management... I just choose to research things before forming an opinion. I do like debates though... I end up learning a lot while researching rebuttals.

And Papa -- I will make an honest attempt to watch that video you linked me to, it'll just be tough in between 50+ hour work week and 8 hours of grad school courses.

Right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Except to pay for something I am not using.

And just to clarify things I am not against paying taxes. I am against the Federal government telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on. I am not above paying sales tax, city tax and even state taxes. I am opposed to paying a tax that would give my money to someone else because they refuse to get a job.

And the comment you made earlier to Sonny about 'what do we do with them? Put them in jail or give them welfare?' Simple. You don't do either. In my house if you don't work you don't eat. That's about as simple as it gets.

You can throw all the google searches you want at me and defend socialism to the end and I will still say you are wrong. And saying it isn't socialism is idiotic at best. Of course it is socialism. What would you call it? Give me another term that best describes what you are endorsing here. And for the record I am not afraid of Socialism. I just don't want it in my country. I am not a Socialist. I am a Capitalist. I am against being forced to pay for someone else's way through life.

And I don't associate freedom with cash. I associate freedom with my ability to do what I want with my cash. I don't work so you can buy groceries. I work so I can buy groceries. If you don't work you don't get to buy groceries this week. Maybe after a few days of being hungry you will get off your ass and find a job. Being told what you can do with the money you worked your ass of to earn is not Capitalism. It is Socialism. I am not throwing that word out to scare people. I am throwing that word out because that is what you call it.

Plainly, a welfare state is against the United States Constitution. It is a policy that is not supported in a free country nor is it supported in a Capitalist society. Taking the money people earn through their LABOR is unconstitutional and therefore technically illegal. Next thing you are going to tell me is that guns are bad and to make us all safe the government should take them from us. We are too stupid to take care of ourselves so let's let Papa Gov think for us. One more step closer to the slippery slope.

Regarding guns, another 'can o' worms'. Start a new thread.

No one would FORCE you into a social medical program. Your paycheck will pay for it, but you don't HAVE to use it. Hell, with Obama's plan you can exchange out of it, if you want to carry your own PRIVATE health insurance. All the government would do is ensure local competitive markets and prevent monopolies. If the government offers a cheap health care plan, that would force the PRIVATE sector to provide a competitive matching program. So, they may only make 30% profit instead of 300%. Though, do not misconstrue any of that as an Obama endorsement (it just happens to be the first plan I Googled). I don't understand why people are so SCARED of this. It's NOT socialism -- everyone just throws those 'scary' words around to frighten people into thinking freedom is lost, when it's not.

You're associating FREEDOM with CASH - They are two totally different things. None of your FREEDOMS have been encroached upon. You don't want to pay taxes - fine, go be Amish, don't use our roads, don't use city water or sewer systems, don't use our hospitals (that are funded by government grants), don't buy, title, and register imported italian motorcycles, no matter how nice they are! (The BMV is a government institution after all). No one is forcing you to live by the rules. There's always options and a way to be truly free.

Additionally, why do you assume the government would MANAGE care? I think with most of the proposed plans - you still actively manage your care, the government just pays the bill and sets a competitive price floor.

----

And you're opening up a whole new can of worms with regards to the budget (Bush's fault), border security, and terrorism. If you want to debate that, we can start another thread.

I clearly wrote, ROME fell because POOR people THOUGHT they could TAX wealth out of existence.

You have any links?? -- I'd like to research this... It's been awhile since I've had history class. I always thought Rome fell because it got too large. And according to when I type in "why did Rome fall?" into Google, I get tons of links having nothing to do with taxing wealth out of existence. More like they didn't collect ENOUGH taxes to sustain themselves. And since when did POOR people ever have control of ROME?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire (Particularly the Bryan-Ward Perkins theory)

YES Paris Hilton deserves finally EVERYTHNING better than me, Including better health care..

I hope you're being sarcastic...

I didnt finish college, but I work less and make more than most people I know... My brain, and my back both... No one made a break for me, I NEVER took one dime from the government ( financial aid or anything in my entire life ) Im 41, so am old enough to see the changes slacker kids, hand me out attitude, what have you done for me lately ingrained from early years on.

Sadly, there's a lot of people that don't have your work ethic, but people take different paths in life too. I preferred to take the college / grad school route and borrow GOVT money to pay for it, and I don't feel bad about it. I paid it back, but it helped me when I needed it - and I'm making my contributions to society everyday. Regardless of yours, or my personal lives - this goes back to my previous post regarding what we do with these slackers? It's better to give them welfare than put them in prison.

My grandparents ( I assume ) some how managed to make it thru life without health insurance, OGHHHHHhhHhhh My how did they do it !

And I'm sure they lived to a ripe old age too, but that's just one case. What does society benefit as a whole by not having health insurance? To simplify, your argument is that the world is a better place without health care (if you can't afford it). To me, that's very narrow-minded. Why don't we just round up all the American families that make less than $30k/yr and put them on an island somewhere to fend for themselves - since you're basically denying them health care since they can't afford it. Why should we penalize kids that come from poor homes? Neither of my parents went to college, and by no means do I feel like I was a deprived child, but there are times where I suffered through some minor illnesses without medicine because we couldn't afford to see a doctor that month (I wasn't an only child).

Im Smarter and a better provider for my family than the gov is, so i want to keep as much as my money as possible, If I had a choice Id say no thanks to S.S. either

If SS were changed into private savings - what would happen to all the people that "miscalculated" what they needed for their retirement (either they blew it all on vacations, or lived longer than they expected, or had an expensive medical bill to treat prostate cancer)? Then what? Do we tell them, sorry 'bout your luck - go off and die somewhere with the other poor homeless senior citizens? Thus the need for social programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid that will outlast your life.

But to each there own, much love to the other side of the isle.

Same here, brother.

I still don't see where you're getting ANY of your information from. How ROME fell... please, educate me - I wanna see how socialism ruined ROME.

While I agree people need to earn things in life, health care should be a basic human right (with few exceptions). You state that you want a few people as possible to have health insurance - well, guess what a free-market will do with that? YOU won't be able to afford it. No demand; therefore, no supply -- you think doctors will go to school for 10 years to sit idle and wait for the very few RICH people that can afford them? No...

And I don't understand what you mean by EARN health care... you mean financially? I had an appendectomy while I was a poor college kid - luckily it fell under my parents insurance, but a lot of people aren't that fortunate (to have health care, OR parents to help them out). Anyone who's been to college knows it's a struggle for cash, and you want to pile health care premiums on top of it? And following along those lines, you think just because Paris Hilton makes 1000x more money than any of us, she DESERVES better health care? I guarantee you I've already contributed more to society that she ever will. Or, that you deserve better health care than I do, because you make more and can afford more? That's bullshit. That might fly for material things, but health care - no way. You are not BETTER or WORSE than me, no matter how much you want to think it.

Another assumption you make is ONE coverage for all - there are OTHER options, you know. There's tiered approaches and different types of coverage, not just EVERYONE under one singular umbrella. It's a SINGLE PAYER system, not necessary a single coverage type system. So, assuming there'll be LESS selection and LESS options is a myth.

And lastly, another tidbit for you to think about, since you're on this whole "EARN it" kick. I can tell you aren't happy with many of the social programs that give handouts to people (i.e. Welfare / food stamps / etc.) - You ever think what would these people do without these programs? "Be forced to get a job" - Ok, yea, that's an option, assuming there are jobs (The US has a rather high employment rate), but there's a lot of those people that I wouldn't trust even on a minimum wage job and would actually make the workforce LESS productive as a whole by working (i.e. being a hindrance to others). 2) They could beg -- I'm sure you'd really rather be accosted everyday on the street by bums, but eventually they'll get sick of panhandling, especially since there won't be enough to go around, and they'll resort to crime. So, option 3) Criminal activities - stealing food, burglarizing homes, etc. There's a proven link between welfare spending and crime (see links below). Given the overcrowding state of our prison system, we don't have anywhere to lock these people up anymore. Build more prisons? With what tax money - you don't want to pay more taxes... and they have operating costs. Also, where do you want these prisons? Not in your backyard I suppose. But, on a positive note, you'll create jobs and we'll end up with a society of inmate and guards. Of course the guards would be the only "productive members" and thus be the only ones to pay taxes, which in turn go back to fund the prisons and take care of the very people they're paid to guard.

Given the total costs involved (including opportunity costs), do you realize it's MUCH cheaper to give someone welfare and let them sit on their lazy ass all day than put them in the US prison system? So, in the long run, it's better off to offer these people FREE, unearned, things rather than to become a police state. I've included the links below so you can compare the costs for the Ohio Welfare system versus the Ohio prison system. To summarize, Ohio spends $199 per our 11.5M residents to operate prisons, versus about the same (a little higher at $2.7B compared to $2.3B) for traditional welfare programs (Food stamps, unemployment) that benefit A LOT more people than our prison population. Then, we spend an additional $14B for Medicaid (gasp! Free health care for poor Ohio residents)

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/welfare_spendin.html

http://jfs.ohio.gov/factsheets/ODJFS_Facts.pdf

http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/Publications/SOC%20Entire%20Book-1007.pdf (Pages 36 & 37)

I was down your way last weekend...taking my ol' lady to South Park. My brother used to live in some apartments right there when we was co-oping for GM.

The war and healthcare are connected for the simple fact that the government makes decisions on both of them, and it's tax dollars at work -- since that's seemingly the ONLY thing you're concerned about is increased taxes.

I don't know anyone that is FOR raising taxes, but shit's gotta get paid for. I'm against gas costing $3/gallon, but I don't QUIT filling my truck with gas. I'm against milk costing $4/gallon, but I don't QUIT having cereal for breakfast. I don't think my property taxes should be used to fund local schools, but I still have a home and pay them.

Since it's all about money with you, hypothetically - what if I told you that I could save you $50/month in insurance premiums, but $40 of that would be taken out in taxes. Net gain for you is $10/mo - would you still be opposed? And why or why not?

But it all goes back to my previous post regarding the unknown future. Illness and accidents are unpredictable (except maybe obesity and smoking). You either pay now (in small chunks), or pay later (one large med bill that will probably bankrupt you).

And I'm sorry that these health care issues can't be simplified down to your level of "Welp, it'll jus cost us mooooore munney and the dang ol' gubermint will be moar in arr bizniss"

This isn't a black-and-white issue, theres a lot of gray. I never denied that it'll cost money, but when you have this current joke of a President in office that would rather spend over $200M A DAY on a fruitless war, it really makes you wonder what $200M a DAY would buy if you spent it on healthcare. Granted, You can't count that entire $200M since some monies would be required to keep US Defense at-the-ready (just not actively engaged), but even if you use 25% of that money. $50M a day could pay for a lot of doctor bills.

Your taxes weren't raised to start a war, so why do you all of a sudden bitch about increased taxes to pay for healthcare? Ohh, it's because that's the fiscally responsible thing. Funny how people realize that money doesn't grow on trees to pay for healthcare, but they just assume a war will miraculously fund itself. It pisses me off that my tax dollars are being "invested" in the middle east rather than taking care of our own, inside the US first. I must be the only one...?

Watch that pay, and hold on to your wallets if UNI care comes to fruition !

Factless and uneducated rants

Let's hear more from the grad school folks, people that actually care to think a little more deeper on these subjects. PrincessPratt???

South side, near Chestnut Ridge and the new WalMart. And, while I loathe everything WalMart stands for...the convenience is hard to beat.

Can I get a :bump:

Most likely due to the gasoline market being local / regional and the crude market being national / global

The information is a little dated, but...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

Also

http://www.thepriceoffuel.com/whataffectsfuelpricing/

Oh so true, but since it isn't our "right" to have health care, we need to pick careers that'll pay our medical costs should we be part of the unfortunate majority. Inner happiness can only be achieved after our outer happiness (and health) has been satisfied.

, but....

To Benyens point... an engineer without a Masters Degree will hit the $60k/yr mark in their first 0-5 years. Again, where's the incentive to teach? If I can make $60k before I'm in my upper 20s versus hitting that mark in my mid-50s, why teach? Not to mention that your uncle had to bust his ass to get a Masters Degree as well. A Masters in almost any other field will assure you a six-figure salary by the time you retire.

ok at this point we are just:beathorse:. I am never going to agree with you and you are never going to agree with me so I don't see the point in arguing over nothing. I will simply agree to disagree.

I didn't think we had reached that point...yet. All I asked for was for you to provide compelling, factual, and unbiased information supporting your points of view -- none of which you provided. You have every right to believe what you want to believe, even if it's based on misinformation (or no information at all) -- while most would feel those are a foolish way of forming an opinion, you believe what you want to believe right?

For all you know, I could agree with your points of view, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here to try to open your mind up to other sides of the debate. If you want to refute my sources or line of logic, then by all means - I'm willing to listen, just provide the information I've requested. You just don't make a very solid foundation for your reasoning.

How do you know it's worse care? What is the basis for this argument -- or are you just making ASSumptions? What are you comparing? While, in theory, the free market allocates resources according to their scarcity - there are certain things that are better-off being run by an inefficient system (namely the gov't) to ensure costs are contained.

You want one example that took me all of 5 minutes to research -- utility deregulation. An example of how a gov't monopoly was better for consumers. If Enron was a gov't run institution, it wouldn't have happened. Educate yourself.