Join The Debate!

Regarding the ED drugs. The government, by design, at the Federal level wasn't to be involved in any healthcare funding. If that is to occur, it was to be at the state level. It isn't a question of whether or not someone is entitled to relief but where it comes from. The Federal government was, by design, not to get involved.

Here is a very good article on that intent, in which Col. Crockett, yes, that Davy Crocket, when a Representative, got called on the carpet by a voter for "social spending."
quote:

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
snip----------------
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
snip-------------
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
---------------------------------------
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

The story is one well worth reading and the result of that confrontation changed the way Col. Crockett voted from that time on. But, more important, it conveys the true intent of our founders for the Federal Government and social spending.

Regarding the Constitution, "we the people" have the right to convey as much power to the Federal Government as we want, but we didn't. The Court gave itself more power and the Federal Government as well. We never amended the Federal Government with the intent to give it the power of social spending though that has been interpreted as such.

What we did amend that really hurt us was the 16th amendment. Whether you agree with the fair tax act or not, which wouldn't stop social spending, the one thing they have right is to repeal the 16th amendment. If we are going to pay for our social programs at any level of government we have to pay for them in a manner that the average citizen (voter) sees what it costs him.

Business taxes, even taxes on profits all come from consumers in the prices they pay and only taxes in the price on exports are paid for by anyone but American consumers and with that tax we pay in the prices we pay, are also the compliance costs for collecting tax from us though business.

Quote:
According to a 2001 U.S. government report entitled "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," companies spent roughly $800 billion annually on federal compliance issues before Sarbanes-Oxley was even drafted.
====================
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1846782,00.asp

In testimony before the tax panel
quote:
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.
=========================
http://www.legalizefreedom.us/article63.html

quote:
For instance, a wage earner in an average-tax state must earn $17,038 to purchase a $10,000 car. That means that the work er pays $7,038 in income, payroll, and sales taxes on a $10,000 car. The study finds that in some high-tax states, such as California and New York, the "true" price to consum ers of goods and services is twice the retail price because of taxes.
===============================
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

What does all that mean? It means that even a low wage earner could pay income tax and save money. Not only would he save moeny, he would be just as mad as you are when his tax rate was threatened to go up. About 1/2 the workers pay no income tax but they pay over 42% in taxes.

35% in hidden taxes in the paycheck to paycheck prices he pays. 7.5% in payroll tax and in many states 8% sales tax. That, alone adds up to 50%. That is part of the reason Chinese making $2 an hour in a GM factory in China have $10 per hour buying power and China's middle class is growing so fast. It is also why they can have 40% saving rate (part of which is for their share of personal accounts for social security and healthcare plans that government and business also contribute to)

Now, look at social security, 90% of your earnings only up to $606 is counted after which only 32% is counted up to $3,653 at which time you only count 15% toward your retirement check. Can you live on $545 (90% of $606) and then 32% of what you now make? No. Yet we tell voters it is a good program for the low wage earners. Only 4% of a low wage earner in the Thrift Savings Plan that 11 million government and other pension people are in, and only in the bond funds, would give them as much as retirement as 12.4% does now. And that 12.4% is in the price we pay and have to compete with foreign natios with. We are in the top five highest corporate tax natiosn and yet, in spite of the fact we are not tax competitive and losing business because of it, we are saddled with it and the compliance costs that keep prices too high to compete.

Get rid of the 16th amendment. Before that time, the states collected the "federal taxes allowed" and forwarded them and we had "power" over the federal government. Not it has power over us.

Quote:
That government is best which governs least.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!
==============================
Thomas Jefferson

Take away their power and you can control their spending.