1. It should not be the job of the government to provide health care to one citizen by taxing another. However, it would be appropriate to allow small businesses to band together in AHP's to help lower their costs.
I don't view it that ideologically, I just find most of the government's 'solutions' to healthcare since 1965-1973 to ultimately be counterproductive. The HMO mandates, subsidies, restrictions on buying across state lines, etc. should be ended since they just distort prices up wards and we should phase out federal control over entitlements since those are money pits and the states would presumably come up with less costly programs if forced to (or no programs at all - which is their right).
This is a states rights issue, it should never have been forced on the states.
Yes I believe in life but there are plenty of rights that exist that are found 'no where in the constitution.' Some things can be implicitly understood.
This should be obvious.
Affirmative action hurts everyone, yes.
It may actually have a deterrent effect (e.g. Mocan studies), but that is irrelevant to why it should be abolished.
Unions have done some good things like pressing for basic work safety standards, reasonable work hours, etc. They've also driven a lot of companies into the ground and done deals with the mob. Almost nothing is ever as black and white as you think.
What does this even mean? You can justify anything with this.
This is a ludicrous argument based on circular logic ('gays shouldn't marry because gays shouldn't marry'). That said while I have no issue with gay marriage, I don't really think the government has any business being involved in that process. Let people draw up their own contracts or determine their own living arrangements without being penalized for it (especially tax wise).
The Soviet Union never had the capacity to take over america, just hurt us economically (mostly peripheral). For god's sake by the early '70s they were dependent on us to
not starve.Low tariffs between willing nations is fine (key word is willing). Massive subsidies, breaks, immunity from prosecution, and unaccountable (even illegal) bureaucracy under 'free trade' agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA/etc. are not.
It doesn't.
That's the least of the problems it causes. Asseit forfeiture anyone? What about the prison crowding? Never mind the expenses, the war on drugs is one of the greatest attacks on personal freedom and the rule of law this country has ever had.
If by 'privatize' you mean 'abolish' then okay.
It's telling that you either don't know about or ignore all of the eastern europeans and chinese smuggled into this country. Of course that said I oppose amnesty or 'guest worker' programs.
It
is set at a low amount, when you factor in the enormous devaluation of the dollar that's occurred since the '70s when rate increases began to become less frequent. That said there is no point to minimum wage. If set too high it destroys jobs, if set too low it is ignored in favor of market rate, so really why bother? You can just investigate claims of discrimination if that's an issue.
Yes.
No (not paranoid).
'Global Warming' is an issue exploited by government and
many corporate interests. Goldman-Sachs involvement in Cap and Trade is just the tip of the ice berg, wake up.
Our present 'leadership' doesn't care about America.. And it didn't under Bush, Clinton, or any of the other puppet presidents we've had either the last several decades. It only cares about what the financial elite and TNCs want. Everything else is a smoke screen or basically boils down to vain delusions about 'saving' the rest of the unenlightened savages out there.
