Sorry but you obviously don't understand anything about Medicare fraud, because virtually 100% of Medicare fraud is perpetuated by the Doctors themselves NOT the patients.

Don't believe me look at your last hospital bill and ask them why it cost you $100 for a pillow $300 for a blanket $1000 for a pair of forceps, $500 for a meal.

I get shots at my doctor for pain that cost me $2500 a shot I asked the insurance company why they cost so much and they said they were listed as "experimental" so I asked my Doctor what they were and he told me they were just normal lidocaine shots like a Dentist uses, they probably cost the Doctor $20 bucks each.

And last time I checked Doctors don't need welfare.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Just Medicare fraud costs us 60 billion dollars a year. A YEAR. And no one seems to give a damn. Do you? So yeah, the "poor" with their two cars, appliances, 3 tvs, and most owning their own homes should be paying more than ZERO. Maybe they'll be less tolerant of their brethren grifting the system.






>> ^rottenseed:
That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.
I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong.

As an American, I am free to tell anyone they are wrong, even the current President who is wrong 98% of the time. No one seems to have a problem telling me I'm wrong.

Do you think I'm a "nobody" because I have "no" money? DEMOCRAT Thomas Jefferson died broke. Was he a nobody?

He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows.
He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself.

No, I would say most of the sifters make more than me, for now. My beef is what you and apparently Gates think the guvmint is going to do with the "extra" cash, since the bastards already make and borrow on their own, at our peril. Remember that magical trillion Obama spent with no results?

To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.

Just Medicare fraud costs us 60 billion dollars a year. A YEAR. And no one seems to give a damn. Do you? So yeah, the "poor" with their two cars, appliances, 3 tvs, and most owning their own homes should be paying more than ZERO. Maybe they'll be less tolerant of their brethren grifting the system.












>> ^rottenseed:

That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.
I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

>> ^NordlichReiter:

The Idea of a standing army, especially in this country is outdated. The type of weapons that are brought to bear are wholly adequate enough to destroy, mutually, all opposition civilians included.

This is an interesting idea. Certainly national defense is a much trickier, complex proposition than it was 200 years ago. I would agree that the military needs a paradigm shift in the way it operates, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point where the number of people with full-time national defense jobs is zero.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I must point out, again and again, that bullets do not care what political ideology you are. So while you or I lay their sucking air through a chest wound choking on our own cries for those we will never see again, let it be said that it could have been avoided.
We are talking about the cost of life to which we cannot put a value on. No accident of birth should force anyone into military service or any service that they did not so choose. The idea that we are even debating this is beyond morally abject to me, at the end of the day what we the people decide someone is going to die. I will not have that on my conscience, and I must do everything in my power to ensure that no life is lost so carelessly to a gaping head wound.
In short, I am against war and the idea of even talking about it is disgusting to me. The cost of life is too great, and entirely unnecessary.


I agree with you entirely. I'd say though, that despite my agreement, I don't see humanity outgrowing the idea of going to war anytime soon. Certainly not in my lifetime.

That means, even if America becomes as peaceful as I'd like it to be, someone will still need to be trained and ready to defend the country. Preferably a lot fewer people than today, but still more than zero.

That's why I'm saying that the question of "How do we decide who serves?" is still a valid one worthy of some thought, no matter how you feel about war. We don't really have any choice about needing to have some preparation for it, even under the best of circumstances.

I think this deserves way more than zero votes other than my own. *beg

microsoft solving yet another problem that nobody actually has.

remember this device will probably require you to register your palmprint with Redmond, and will then say "unauthorised user" when you pick it up.

the problem with this (apart from the obvious one about your fingers blocking the text ANYWAY...) is the latency.. the time between your movement and the reaction of the image on screen. if it's more than zero latency then i'd say "no thanks". Although remember how people said the mouse would never catch on...

i said "how many?" prolifers adopt a rapist's child, that's a question, you could answer it with a percentage. of course i know that the answer is more than zero. but it probably isn't 100, right?

if you're going to tell someone else they should bring up an unwanted child, but not lead by example, then i can't really be bothered to listen to the other stuff you say. it's that serious, and that simple for me.