If people seriously have gotten to the point that they think the government owes them Viagra pills, we are worse off than I imagined.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Be thankful I have a pension to help me when I'm 65...67...whatever it'll be in 20 years... Pay low rates for health insurance, and when my claim for boner pills are denied do what any reasonable person would do and pay out of pocket. But hey, lawsuits fix everything.

"Porforis" wrote:

Owes?? Its just crazy you can't comprehend these people pay taxes and work for their pay.

"dhpackr" wrote:

"MassPackersFan" wrote:

I love the union vs. non-union argument. UPS doesn't TOUCH the bennies that we get at FedEx. Guess which is union? I have a few friends that have worked at UPS and they have said how ridiculous it was working there. One of them tried for 2 years to get fired and didn't because of the union. He said it was unbelievable. He eventually just quit, instead.

"Formo" wrote:

I see, so your stance is Erectile dysfunction does not exist, it is not a medical condition.

is alcoholism a disease? drug dependency?

"dhpackr" wrote:

I have no problem with unions.

I have a serious problem with taxes.

If people want to combine to get more bargaining power, that's just fine with me. If once combined, they want to try to use that bargaining power to get bigger and bigger slices of the pie they share with their employers and their employers' customers, that's fine with me, too.

I don't think fighting over pies is a sound business model, but that's neither here nor there. What other people do with their pies is their choice to make, not mine. Union, no union, labor unrest, no labor unrest, blah blah blah. If people want to make their sandbox a war zone, fine with me. It's their sandbox.

What I object to is them fighting over a pie that neither of the sides pay for. I don't believe people are entitled to take tax dollars just because they want bigger slices of pie.

Oh, yes, since someone asked this, albeit rhetorically, I do favor tax cuts for "the rich". Their money is neither mine nor yours. We aren't entitled to it, any more than we're entitled to the money of the poor.

I'd rather be richer than I am. But just because people like Paris Hilton or Donald Trump or the last lottery winner lucked into having a crapload more wealth than me without "working" for it, doesn't mean I'm entitled to share their wealth.

If they want to spend their unearned wealth on trivial stuff, on hundred-dollar Italian underwear and silk toilet paper and solid gold doorknobs...well, that may be all sorts of disgusting to me. But its still their wealth.

And if they want to turn around and pay their employees minimum wage, well, yes, they're scumbags as well as frivolous twits.

But it is still their wealth. Not mine. Not yours.

Just because we're in the majority, and the rich scumbag frivolous twits are in the minority, doesn't make their wealth ours to take.

The problem is not that politicians cut taxes to the rich too much. The only problem is that there is not a politician alive who is willing to make big enough tax cuts.

"Wade" wrote: