Indefensible.

Ideally it wouldn't have to come down to the government forcibly taking it, but the sad fact of the world is if the government doesn't, you end up like Central/South America, with 1 percent holding 99 percent of the wealth and living in fortresses while the unwashed masses murder each other. Somehow tony, if America went that route, I doubt you'd be in the 1 percent.

 

Adam Smith's argument is fine as long as it's private charities. Once the government gets involved in the forcible confiscation of Peter's bank account to pay Paul's bills, you're not talking capitalism, whether Adam Smith wanted it or not.

 

Well, you keep believing that we're on our way to that. As for me, I'll keep living in reality.

 

The reality of the American economy existing mostly on capitalist ideals with a few socialist ideals sprinkled in? Because that's what it is, and that's what's effective. Another reality is that nation's that are what you're advocating -- leaving the distribution of wealth solely to the device of those with the wealth -- rival the purely socialist nations as the worst on Earth. You can't be purely one or the other. That's reality.

 

What if it's robbing Peter's bank account to pay Nouri's bills? Is that OK?

 

Wow. That's a Randy Johnson circa 2001 fastball under the chin. Well played, sir.

 

The SCHIP bill.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/press/FINALReptGAO-01-883.pdf

 

By the way, anyone else notice how now that the surge has led to huge gains in Iraq that we're suddenly not hearing very much news at all from Iraq?

I noted that some of you lefties were on a thread earlier this week bitching that US deaths were down to two a day in Iraq.

 

...to a T.

 

Answer the question.

 

Shockingly, tony was getting busted up in an argument and changed the subject.

Weird.

 

How many deaths per day are you comfortable with, Old Tony?