TexasCHLforum.com

Heartland Patriot wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

Dave2 wrote: This was not about whether or not Romney was the best candidate... My dead dog should've been able to beat Obama in the general election

I think the GOP cold have won with a better candidate. Now and in 2008.

And let us guess the name of that "better candidate"...at this point, I'm no longer downing your guy, who knows exactly what would have happened if he had gotten the nomination...but I just don't think anyone who wasn't willing to promise "free stuff" to those who won't work to get it could have won that election. Your guy wouldn't have promised "free stuff".

BHO promised "free stuff", he won.

Santa Claus is a tough opponent.

As Neil Boortz often said, the Libertarian Party will not solve the nation's problems, but libertarian ideas within the existing two party system has a pretty good chance.

As a Libertarian, I will vote for Romney and Ted Cruz, in hopes that the libertarian ideas may take a more prevalent role in DC.

I am aware enough to notice the hand basket we are all in.

george wrote:We will never ever get a flat tax, because the guv'ment likes the power that comes with our present system. They can manipulate our actions and lives with the present tax code. For instance, you want people to eat more corn? They just give people a tax break for buying corn. You want to promote electric cars? Just give people a tax break to buy one. Etc. They wield too much power with the present system, and they would lose that with a fair tax system.

EXACTLY

I would like to add, the lobbyists and the congress critters they service are the ones who profit most under the current system, and have the most to lose with the Fair Tax.

Imagine a system that cannot be finagled to create winners and losers, help and punishment, favors and retribution, all at the whim of congress critters slinking their way to the lobbyists. All items are taxed the same, no matter who lives in what state, pressure from imports, crop failures, or the brother-in-law effect.

I would like to see it, it would make April 15th another beautiful spring day instead of the day of dread for millions of people. But getting those in power to loosen their grip and give up the perks the lobbyists offer for a “small tweak” in the codes, I don’t see it happening.

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpa ... z27gMo4y00

2firfun50 wrote:I've got a serious question for those opposed to paying for health insurance or being taxed for that decision.

I understand that Plan A is to never have a serious illness or injury, not pay any taxes, or health insurance, etc..

But if misfortune should strike, what is Plan B? Who pays the bill?

The problem with health care today is not the cost, the problem is that everyone believes they have a "right" to health care regardless of cost. Sure, there are whiz-bang techniques and state of the art machines that can diagnose and cure your every ailment, but do you have a right to utilize these things if you cannot pay for them?

For example, say there is "High Tech Automotive" in town that has the latest diagnostic and repair equipment available which utilizes factory trained technicians that can fix any automotive related issue you can think of. There is also "Joe Blow's Garage" that has Joe and an outdated diagnostic tune up machine. You can spend $200.00 an hour at "High Tech Automotive" who will have your car tuned up and running like new in two days for $4000.00. Or you can spend $50.00 an hour letting Joe look at your car, ordering parts, and it takes a week and $750.00 to get it "mostly" running well. Health care today is like taking your car to Joe, then having it air lifted to High Tech, and you paying nothing for any of it.

I have been on the receiving end of Health Care many times in my life - more than I like. I've had medical problems where I was covered by good insurance and some where I wasn't covered at all. I injured my left hand while uninsured, and although I had it worked on with two surgeries, it was by Joe Blow's Garage and not the High Tech center, and I now have a permanently fused joint in one of my fingers, and made payments for that for fifteen years. I was diagnosed with cancer while covered with some very good insurance (and an Aflac policy, which I highly recommend if you have the chance to purchase) and I was taken care of by the High Tech place.

If I did not have insurance for the cancer, I would not have gotten treatments and would probably not be here today. Life it terminal, it is only a case of when. I would have regretted leaving my family in a tight situation, but as it is now if I were to die my family would be taken care of. Part of leading a responsible life is having a responsible death, and ensuring your loved ones don't suffer after you are gone goes a long way in that. For that reason, I refuse to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills to be paid by my family after I die, so either I have insurance coverage that will pay, or I refuse care that might save me. Sure it would suck to leave this world at a fairly young age (diagnosed at age 40) but to me it is better than taking a chance on living a longer life if I had to drag my loved ones into debt to take that chance.

Believe me I have mulled this over many times in the last seven years since I was diagnosed. I mulled it over earlier this year when my mother passed away debt free and left a small inheritance to myself and my siblings. I mulled it over when a friend passed away leaving his family in bankruptcy paying for long term care that didn't improve his quality of life and ruined his family's financial situation after he was gone. Dying is part of living, everyone will do it, rich, poor, or in the middle, even the latest, greatest, and most expensive care in the world will not change that fact, so you need to plan for it and make sure you do it well. Leaving others, family or taxpayers, to pay for your care is not dying well and people should be ashamed if that is their "plan B".

Something that has been bothering me. In his acceptance speech, Romney said,

And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs.

I was wondering why not a plan to create 15 million new jobs? Or 20 million new jobs? Or even 30 million new jobs? I mean, if you are going to promise new job creation, why limit yourself?

I do not like when presidents promise things they cannot deliver, all he can do is create an environment in which business can thrive or put people on the fed's payroll. If the latter is what he is talking about then we are all in deep, if it is the former then why not just say,

I want to create an environment where business can prosper and be willing to hire all the workers they need to be profitable, which will create new opportunity for millions of others, and get the engine of the free market running again."

Seems like he is dumbing it down. Is my libertarianism showing?