Bonita Woman Forestalls eviction – for now

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.

[teaboy]

[quote=CA renter]…nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb 😉

[teaboy]

[quote=CA renter]…nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb 😉

[teaboy]

[quote=CA renter]…nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb 😉

[teaboy]

[quote=CA renter]…nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb 😉

[teaboy]

[quote=CA renter]…nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb 😉

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I want to clarify my position that I am NOT “anti-government.” However, I DO believe that the Federal Government spends excessively on defense which could be put to good use within our own borders. And I have stated before here (link below) that I don’t believe in the current SS Rules for SSI and SSD recipients, many of whom are FAR AWAY from retirement age and collect these benefits for what amounts to nearly their entire lifetimes.

http://piggington.com/boston_u_econ_prof_calculates_202_trillion_us_fiscal_gap

Because these young (high % scamming the “system”) SSD recipients are bankrupting the OASDI account (SS is robbing Peter to pay Paul, here), I would rather just receive a lump sum total of mine and my employers’ FICA contributions sans interest as soon as possible and be responsible for its safekeeping/growth and recieve NO SS benefits when I become eligible. I believe the OASDI account of the SSA will be bankrupt within the next 15 years because of this mismanagement and none of us who live past 15 more years (and are eligible for benefits) will even be able to recover the total of their contributions, and workers STILL ineligible to receive their SS benefits in 15 years will receive NOTHING from this “ponzi scheme.” :=(

IMO, OASDI benefits were set aside for WORKERS with 40 quarters of documented WORK (FICA contributions they paid or paid into the fund on their behalf). I don’t believe others should be eligible to receive these benefits as this is unjust enrichment to those who didn’t WORK for the benefits.

In the case of the death of a worker parent who never collected their benefits, I DO believe there should be benefits available for any surviving minor children. However, these benefits should only last until age 18 or grad. from HS, whichever comes occurs (NOT age 23) and should be capped. Many minor children are currently receiving up to $2300 month apiece and this is unjust enrichment to their guardian, who may have never contributed to the “system” themselves.

I don’t believe minor children should be able to collect SS from the death of a parent who contributed little to nothing to SS . . . perhaps just the “lump sum” of principal and interest of their contribution, if any.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I want to clarify my position that I am NOT “anti-government.” However, I DO believe that the Federal Government spends excessively on defense which could be put to good use within our own borders. And I have stated before here (link below) that I don’t believe in the current SS Rules for SSI and SSD recipients, many of whom are FAR AWAY from retirement age and collect these benefits for what amounts to nearly their entire lifetimes.

http://piggington.com/boston_u_econ_prof_calculates_202_trillion_us_fiscal_gap

Because these young (high % scamming the “system”) SSD recipients are bankrupting the OASDI account (SS is robbing Peter to pay Paul, here), I would rather just receive a lump sum total of mine and my employers’ FICA contributions sans interest as soon as possible and be responsible for its safekeeping/growth and recieve NO SS benefits when I become eligible. I believe the OASDI account of the SSA will be bankrupt within the next 15 years because of this mismanagement and none of us who live past 15 more years (and are eligible for benefits) will even be able to recover the total of their contributions, and workers STILL ineligible to receive their SS benefits in 15 years will receive NOTHING from this “ponzi scheme.” :=(

IMO, OASDI benefits were set aside for WORKERS with 40 quarters of documented WORK (FICA contributions they paid or paid into the fund on their behalf). I don’t believe others should be eligible to receive these benefits as this is unjust enrichment to those who didn’t WORK for the benefits.

In the case of the death of a worker parent who never collected their benefits, I DO believe there should be benefits available for any surviving minor children. However, these benefits should only last until age 18 or grad. from HS, whichever comes occurs (NOT age 23) and should be capped. Many minor children are currently receiving up to $2300 month apiece and this is unjust enrichment to their guardian, who may have never contributed to the “system” themselves.

I don’t believe minor children should be able to collect SS from the death of a parent who contributed little to nothing to SS . . . perhaps just the “lump sum” of principal and interest of their contribution, if any.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I want to clarify my position that I am NOT “anti-government.” However, I DO believe that the Federal Government spends excessively on defense which could be put to good use within our own borders. And I have stated before here (link below) that I don’t believe in the current SS Rules for SSI and SSD recipients, many of whom are FAR AWAY from retirement age and collect these benefits for what amounts to nearly their entire lifetimes.

http://piggington.com/boston_u_econ_prof_calculates_202_trillion_us_fiscal_gap

Because these young (high % scamming the “system”) SSD recipients are bankrupting the OASDI account (SS is robbing Peter to pay Paul, here), I would rather just receive a lump sum total of mine and my employers’ FICA contributions sans interest as soon as possible and be responsible for its safekeeping/growth and recieve NO SS benefits when I become eligible. I believe the OASDI account of the SSA will be bankrupt within the next 15 years because of this mismanagement and none of us who live past 15 more years (and are eligible for benefits) will even be able to recover the total of their contributions, and workers STILL ineligible to receive their SS benefits in 15 years will receive NOTHING from this “ponzi scheme.” :=(

IMO, OASDI benefits were set aside for WORKERS with 40 quarters of documented WORK (FICA contributions they paid or paid into the fund on their behalf). I don’t believe others should be eligible to receive these benefits as this is unjust enrichment to those who didn’t WORK for the benefits.

In the case of the death of a worker parent who never collected their benefits, I DO believe there should be benefits available for any surviving minor children. However, these benefits should only last until age 18 or grad. from HS, whichever comes occurs (NOT age 23) and should be capped. Many minor children are currently receiving up to $2300 month apiece and this is unjust enrichment to their guardian, who may have never contributed to the “system” themselves.

I don’t believe minor children should be able to collect SS from the death of a parent who contributed little to nothing to SS . . . perhaps just the “lump sum” of principal and interest of their contribution, if any.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I want to clarify my position that I am NOT “anti-government.” However, I DO believe that the Federal Government spends excessively on defense which could be put to good use within our own borders. And I have stated before here (link below) that I don’t believe in the current SS Rules for SSI and SSD recipients, many of whom are FAR AWAY from retirement age and collect these benefits for what amounts to nearly their entire lifetimes.

http://piggington.com/boston_u_econ_prof_calculates_202_trillion_us_fiscal_gap

Because these young (high % scamming the “system”) SSD recipients are bankrupting the OASDI account (SS is robbing Peter to pay Paul, here), I would rather just receive a lump sum total of mine and my employers’ FICA contributions sans interest as soon as possible and be responsible for its safekeeping/growth and recieve NO SS benefits when I become eligible. I believe the OASDI account of the SSA will be bankrupt within the next 15 years because of this mismanagement and none of us who live past 15 more years (and are eligible for benefits) will even be able to recover the total of their contributions, and workers STILL ineligible to receive their SS benefits in 15 years will receive NOTHING from this “ponzi scheme.” :=(

IMO, OASDI benefits were set aside for WORKERS with 40 quarters of documented WORK (FICA contributions they paid or paid into the fund on their behalf). I don’t believe others should be eligible to receive these benefits as this is unjust enrichment to those who didn’t WORK for the benefits.

In the case of the death of a worker parent who never collected their benefits, I DO believe there should be benefits available for any surviving minor children. However, these benefits should only last until age 18 or grad. from HS, whichever comes occurs (NOT age 23) and should be capped. Many minor children are currently receiving up to $2300 month apiece and this is unjust enrichment to their guardian, who may have never contributed to the “system” themselves.

I don’t believe minor children should be able to collect SS from the death of a parent who contributed little to nothing to SS . . . perhaps just the “lump sum” of principal and interest of their contribution, if any.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=teaboy]Yes, sales tax may well be one of the more visible forms of tax to many people. But on a forum like this I would hope that we can look at the cost/benefits of government more subjectively, rather than digressing to a few distracting talking points. Isn’t that what our politicians are for?

Here’s the way I look at it:
My 1st assumption is that most reasonable people would agree that over a single “economic cycle” the budget should balance (i.e. total tax revenue = total spending).

Therefore, if lower spending = lower taxes then shouldn’t we be looking at the major spending categories?
I believe the major spending categories are something like:
Medicare, Medicaid, etc (33%)
Social Security (21%)
Defense (20%)

So, if this is where the majority of tax dollars are spent, why are we wasting our time on this board talking about this vague “big government” boogie man which the “majority of people” is wasting their life worrying about?

Or do we think that those 3 main spending categories have much less $$ fat to trim than others?

Or is it possible that we actually all need to and soon will end up paying more tax than we already do, but the only way to make that palatable to ourselves is to expend 90% of our efforts to reduce our spending (and we therefore assume our tax bills) by $1.50 per year each. Big whoop.

tb[/quote]

Good post, teaboy. Unfortunately, many from the “anti-govt” group depend on one of those categories. It’s easy to say, “cut taxes,” but nobody wants to cut from their own fat.[/quote]

CAR, I want to clarify my position that I am NOT “anti-government.” However, I DO believe that the Federal Government spends excessively on defense which could be put to good use within our own borders. And I have stated before here (link below) that I don’t believe in the current SS Rules for SSI and SSD recipients, many of whom are FAR AWAY from retirement age and collect these benefits for what amounts to nearly their entire lifetimes.

http://piggington.com/boston_u_econ_prof_calculates_202_trillion_us_fiscal_gap

Because these young (high % scamming the “system”) SSD recipients are bankrupting the OASDI account (SS is robbing Peter to pay Paul, here), I would rather just receive a lump sum total of mine and my employers’ FICA contributions sans interest as soon as possible and be responsible for its safekeeping/growth and recieve NO SS benefits when I become eligible. I believe the OASDI account of the SSA will be bankrupt within the next 15 years because of this mismanagement and none of us who live past 15 more years (and are eligible for benefits) will even be able to recover the total of their contributions, and workers STILL ineligible to receive their SS benefits in 15 years will receive NOTHING from this “ponzi scheme.” :=(

IMO, OASDI benefits were set aside for WORKERS with 40 quarters of documented WORK (FICA contributions they paid or paid into the fund on their behalf). I don’t believe others should be eligible to receive these benefits as this is unjust enrichment to those who didn’t WORK for the benefits.

In the case of the death of a worker parent who never collected their benefits, I DO believe there should be benefits available for any surviving minor children. However, these benefits should only last until age 18 or grad. from HS, whichever comes occurs (NOT age 23) and should be capped. Many minor children are currently receiving up to $2300 month apiece and this is unjust enrichment to their guardian, who may have never contributed to the “system” themselves.

I don’t believe minor children should be able to collect SS from the death of a parent who contributed little to nothing to SS . . . perhaps just the “lump sum” of principal and interest of their contribution, if any.

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]
CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb ;-)[/quote]

teaboy,

I agree with you, but didn’t think you were “anti-govt” in the first place. Those of us who tend toward a more “socialistic” approach seem to be the ones who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good (no surprise there, I suppose).

That being said, the “anti-govt” types are all too often the ones who support foreign wars/a strong military force, effective law enforcement (local and national), want full SS and Medicare benefits, want all the infrastructure and services that are provided by our govt, but don’t want to pay any taxes. Granny wants to call 911 and have the cops, firefighters, or paramedics there within minutes — and wants Medicare to cover her resulting bills, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it. This is what I find so ironic.

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]
CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb ;-)[/quote]

teaboy,

I agree with you, but didn’t think you were “anti-govt” in the first place. Those of us who tend toward a more “socialistic” approach seem to be the ones who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good (no surprise there, I suppose).

That being said, the “anti-govt” types are all too often the ones who support foreign wars/a strong military force, effective law enforcement (local and national), want full SS and Medicare benefits, want all the infrastructure and services that are provided by our govt, but don’t want to pay any taxes. Granny wants to call 911 and have the cops, firefighters, or paramedics there within minutes — and wants Medicare to cover her resulting bills, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it. This is what I find so ironic.

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]
CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb ;-)[/quote]

teaboy,

I agree with you, but didn’t think you were “anti-govt” in the first place. Those of us who tend toward a more “socialistic” approach seem to be the ones who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good (no surprise there, I suppose).

That being said, the “anti-govt” types are all too often the ones who support foreign wars/a strong military force, effective law enforcement (local and national), want full SS and Medicare benefits, want all the infrastructure and services that are provided by our govt, but don’t want to pay any taxes. Granny wants to call 911 and have the cops, firefighters, or paramedics there within minutes — and wants Medicare to cover her resulting bills, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it. This is what I find so ironic.

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]
CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb ;-)[/quote]

teaboy,

I agree with you, but didn’t think you were “anti-govt” in the first place. Those of us who tend toward a more “socialistic” approach seem to be the ones who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good (no surprise there, I suppose).

That being said, the “anti-govt” types are all too often the ones who support foreign wars/a strong military force, effective law enforcement (local and national), want full SS and Medicare benefits, want all the infrastructure and services that are provided by our govt, but don’t want to pay any taxes. Granny wants to call 911 and have the cops, firefighters, or paramedics there within minutes — and wants Medicare to cover her resulting bills, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it. This is what I find so ironic.

[Author]

Posts