According to Willie-O:

"The point of taxation in is that it is spread out among those who benefit from it, society at large, and that it is assessed progressively according to the relative ability to pay."

Not unlike:

"From each according to their means, to each according to their needs."

I thought the point of taxation was to collect enough money to provide the government with the means to do the things that individuals couldn't do as efficiently themselves. And to be honest, I could count that list on both hands and have 9 fingers left over.

According to Willie-O:

"Anyone who has trouble affording bologna would benefit by a rationalized health care system which did not threaten them with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, or let them die, if they should happen to suffer a serious illness."

1. Get the government out of the health care business and costs would drop immediately. In the 20 years before Medicare, the cost of a hospital stay increased 300%. In the first 20 years of Medicare, it increased 800%. If the government subsidizes something, the cost of the service increases, because there's no individual to say "no, we won't pay that much, dammit!". Pass meaningful tort reform and health care costs would again drop. A big chunk of a medical bill goes to covering a doctor's ass if a lawyer decides he can make a quick buck from a frivolous lawsuit. One simple rule solves that problem. Loser pays the winner's court fees. It works in England.

2. Nobody has trouble affording bologna. They might have trouble with saving their money for things like food when there are more fun things to spend it on like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets, but a pack of bologna and a loaf of bread that could last a family of 4 several days would only cost about $4.00. Whole chickens are about $1.00 a pound. A dozen eggs cost less than $1. Canned tuna? about 50 cents. The point is, it's not that tough to save enough money from your paycheck, no matter what you earn, to buy groceries for your family. I think it would be wonderful for those who truly can't afford health insurance to have their problems subsidized by the government, but nobody in government will let such a simple solution happen. Not enough power from helping only the people who need it. Much more power is gained from putting everyone under the same umberalla, even if it's only partly cloudy outside.

3. If you want to see people literally "dying" to get health care, take a look at the cancer treatment waiting list in Canada. They have the exact system that Hitlary and the illegal 500-member health care task force of '93 tried to implement in the U.S., and people routinely die of cancer there while waiting from 6 months to a year on a list for treatment. It's a two-tiered system, though, because the rich can buy their own advanced treatment in America if they choose (and believe me, they choose, they choose!) You'll find the same two-tiered system (people with cash to the front of the line) in almost every western European country that U.S. leftists aspire towards.

According to Willie-O:

"Huckabee's cute little campaign is a distortion, guaranteed to get lots of self-congratulatory but meaningless comments from those who think the less that is invested in the social infrastructure, the better their lives will be."

Now now, Willie, Huckabee isn't suggesting that taxes be lowered or the infrastructure be decimated, he's just suggesting that the bleeding heart limousine liberals who feel good anytime taxes are raised and government is expanded should put their money where their mouth is. And they have, to the tune of $260.00.

I have to live within my budget. You have to live within your budget. We give government its rights, not vice-versa (a little thing called the Constitution established that a while back). Tell me why it is then, that the government doesn't have to live within its means. Why is it that the government is allowed to grant itself access to more of your money and my money when it determines that there's more things it needs to spend money on? Simple. Having money to spend = votes = power. In medieval times of Serfdom, a person was granted slave status if he had to pay more than 1/3 of his income to his land owner. The average American now pays over 50% of their income to some form of taxation. That's a direct transfer of freedom and power from my wallet and your wallet to the government. Some call it an "investment" in the "infrastructure", but I'm not exactly allowed to "invest" elsewhere if I don't like the "rate of return", am I?

I'll leave you with this quote--It's worth thinking about:

"(A democracy) can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

-Alexander Tyler, on the Athenian Democracy