Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Should Bush Be Held Accountable? sign the petition
constructiveanarchy.com — Hold Bush accountable -Sign the petition at *kucinich.us* Tell your friends to sign the impeachment petition Please Share, DIGG, Shout, Post on every Blog including yours, make vids, site, bullitons, messages, e-mail, contact news-media, radio stations, newspapers, tv channels, tell your friends, call people, help spread the word in any way.
politicalfan28- 96 diggs
- digg it
- victorsage, on 08/12/2008, -5/+2Why should the government be responsible for taking care of your children? For that matter, why should the money I pay in taxes be used to support any health care system at all? I believe the only way for US citizens to receive decent coverage is to have health care providers compete for my business. It's the only way to keep the prices low and the quality/benefits high.
Please don't use the excuse that some people can't afford it, because the only way universal health care can be funded is through tax dollars which are paid by those same people who supposedly can't afford it. A better solution would be to eliminate taxes all together and allow everyone to decide which (if any) health care package is right for them. - brightlight4, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6That Victor is a load of CRAP!!! had it not been for free health care in the UK when I was a kid I would have no teeth now and my sister would have died from osteomyelitis because my mother was a widow with five kids and unable to work as she couldn't afford to pay for someone to look after my younger sister and she had no relatives near our home to help her. The whole idea is an idea of unselfishness, where those who can pay taxes help those who can't at one time, and those who can't pay taxes later find work and pay taxes to help the other earlier tax payers when they get older and can't pay taxes but need free health care because they no longer work!!! SOLIDARITY.... Something you people in the US have never heard of!!!
- Colindean, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4It's not the job of the government to force its citizens to give to charity through taxes. The government could (should?) urge people to give to charities which fulfill each person's goals. For instance, why should I be forced to pay taxes to help someone in a foreign country when I could and probably would donate that money to someone a charity in my own city which helps people in the same situation.
It's time America puts itself first. Keeping voluntarily-given charitable dollars inside the US would be a better show of solidarity than any government-enforced, government-given charity. - victorsage, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Brightlight4, I do sympathize with the situation your family has been through and I'm glad that the mandatory-charity (oxymoron?) works so well for those in the UK. I feel that a universal health care tax would be another form of control that the our US government should not have. I also feel you are mistaken on some of the statements you've made regarding US citizens selflessness and solidarity. According to the following two links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitab ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/
...the US seems to be consistently the most charitable nation in the world. The donations these sites are referring to are all voluntary and from what I can tell are from private citizens; so if any country's citizens would be considered unselfish and live by the actual definition of the word solidarity, I would have to say it would be US citizens (if going by charitable donations, alone).
I already give 1/3 of my paycheck to the state and federal government through taxes (that's before the 7% sales tax). I shouldn't have to give more of my hard earned money to support a government program I do not agree with or even need. If I want to donate money to a group that helps support single parents, I will. I should not be forced to do so.- rexblade, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Were not in the UK. With the current state of our deficit we simply don't have the funds nor should we just say so what and keep the current system in place it wouldn't work out to well. I think it will be a couple years before the amount of pilferage of the social security fund gets realized the last seven years really bled us dry. Making a social medicine type system without addressing the corporations who profit in that area would be the straw that broke the camels back, If it's not in traction already.
- obamayomama, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1I've got news... no health care is "free." Someone, somewhere has to pay for it. And if you were unfortunate enough to lose your teeth in England, at least you'd fit right in.
- Colindean, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4It's not the job of the government to force its citizens to give to charity through taxes. The government could (should?) urge people to give to charities which fulfill each person's goals. For instance, why should I be forced to pay taxes to help someone in a foreign country when I could and probably would donate that money to someone a charity in my own city which helps people in the same situation.
- MarkEarhart, on 08/13/2008, -1/+6Bush and the entire administration, as well as those in Congress who enabled him by voting for his criminal acts or failed to vote against them, should all be executed for war crimes and treason. They would make lovely ornaments for the fence around the White House.
- rexblade, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Lol a whole new artistic landscaping movement could come from that "Say is that stunning fence neo-con picket? Why yes, yes it is!"
- beerock, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1NO! Blame the population.
- angryfirelord, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Maybe if we still had state rights, then we could blame the population. However, since all of the socialist politicians want the federal government to have all of the power, I'd say it's both: the employers (us) were not responsible in researching candidates more clearly and our politicians for being a bunch of a-holes.
- Hockey13, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Good comment, angry. Much of the evil of modern governmental systems stems from the lack of recognition of the beauty of a bottom up power structure. This is a beneficial for several reasons:
1. If your town or state makes a law you don't like (e.g. criminalizing marijuana), you can simply move to another town or state. This allows for a long-term free market of ideas as competition by the non-federal governments for residents (residential, commercial, and industrial) should ultimately keep stupid ideas from spreading too far.
2. The federal government wouldn't have the power to make any excessively draconian laws. It's a lot more difficult to leave the country than it is to leave a town or state.
The principle of a states' rights system is written directly in the Constitution, but these days federal laws are in perpetual violation of states' rights because nobody seems to care anymore. A states' rights system isn't pretty at times, but the alternative of a top-heavy government is dangerous in many, many ways. The President, Congress, and the federal courts should NOT have this much power. It spits in the face of the beauty of the logic of the Constitution.
- Hockey13, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Good comment, angry. Much of the evil of modern governmental systems stems from the lack of recognition of the beauty of a bottom up power structure. This is a beneficial for several reasons:
- angryfirelord, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Maybe if we still had state rights, then we could blame the population. However, since all of the socialist politicians want the federal government to have all of the power, I'd say it's both: the employers (us) were not responsible in researching candidates more clearly and our politicians for being a bunch of a-holes.
- brightlight4, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1So a widow alone with no family living nearby her, with five children so she cannot work because her children are all to young to be left alone all day and she does not have the income to pay someone to look after them, should go out on the streets begging with all five children with her too? How the hell do people survive in the US? Why should I live off charity if I have paid taxes into a system. The system gives me free medical care at state hospitals and free education at state schools (both of which are good quality health care and educational care) along with many other aids for those who need them. I do not understand the system you have in the US. All I can see is that it is collapsing and we at least in Europe have a system which, I think, has much more solidarity than the US charity system. After all, you have to earn one hell of a lot of money to help by giving charity to others. Our system works in a different way, EVERYONE participates to pay for a State health and educational system which is much fairer than charity from millionaires who donate to charity to get tax reductions!!!!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is