|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Toots
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:29 PM Original message |
Would you support a 5% National Sales tax for the purpose of national Health Care |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xmas74
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:30 PM Response to Original message |
1. Yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SharonAnn
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:39 PM Response to Reply #1 |
63. No, reinstate the taxes on high incomes. They're using our Social Security money to run the governm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xmas74
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 04:10 PM Response to Reply #63 |
135. I live just barely above poverty. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Gunslinger
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:31 PM Response to Original message |
2. yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AlCzervik
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:31 PM Response to Original message |
3. yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
napi21
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:32 PM Response to Original message |
4. Yes, as long asthere were also some tight controls to prevent it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ingac70
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:32 PM Response to Original message |
5. Yep. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gormy Cuss
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:32 PM Response to Original message |
6. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Alexander
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:33 PM Response to Original message |
7. Yes, although I'd prefer an income tax on people making over $500,000/year. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Thothmes
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:16 AM Response to Reply #7 |
95. Tax |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jlake
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:33 PM Response to Original message |
8. No. Because No new tax is necessary. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Justyce
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:59 PM Response to Reply #8 |
32. Amen. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:23 PM Response to Reply #8 |
49. What do we cut? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:33 PM Response to Reply #49 |
57. It wouldn't cost 1 trillion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:49 PM Response to Reply #57 |
70. The 1 trillion I cite takes into account the fact there would be cost savings. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NewJeffCT
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:36 AM Response to Reply #57 |
104. It would likely cost more than $1 trillion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jed Dilligan
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:36 PM Response to Reply #49 |
59. The unaccounted-for trillions from the Pentagon, for starts. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:49 PM Response to Reply #59 |
69. The Pentagon has a secret stash of cash which equals over 50% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
calimary
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:06 PM Response to Reply #49 |
77. How 'bout the war, for starters? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flaminbats
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 PM Response to Reply #8 |
75. the money isn't there.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Guaranteed
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 02:32 AM Response to Reply #75 |
88. The money is there- it's just going to HMO's right now. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NewJeffCT
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:24 AM Response to Reply #88 |
98. It's mostly going to the Pharmaceuticals - check out the stats: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:55 AM Response to Reply #75 |
125. The Canadian system costs canadians... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flaminbats
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:15 AM Response to Reply #125 |
128. Canada doesn't have a $9 trillion debt.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 01:25 PM Response to Reply #128 |
134. the apparent premise of sales taxes supporters is; since income tax is maxed out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lovuian
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:34 PM Response to Original message |
9. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SharonRB
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:34 PM Response to Original message |
10. Yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
roamer65
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:36 PM Response to Original message |
11. No. Tax the rich like the 1950's. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
w8liftinglady
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:36 PM Response to Original message |
12. well,hell-yeah-as long as it applied to everyone |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:37 PM Response to Original message |
13. No- it's regressive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 PM Response to Reply #13 |
46. Funding is the least important issue. Sick people take precedence over money. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
davekriss
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:38 PM Response to Original message |
14. yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:39 PM Response to Original message |
15. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
baldguy
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:39 PM Response to Original message |
16. Sales taxes are inherently regressive. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poiuyt
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:12 PM Response to Reply #16 |
37. Bingo! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:14 PM Response to Reply #37 |
39. So? The greater benefit outweighs the inherent flaw in the tax. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:15 PM Response to Reply #39 |
41. Ends up being more corporate welfare. Tax workers so bosses can ditch health benefits |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:17 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. The money isn't the issue, the dying people are . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:35 PM Response to Reply #44 |
58. My priorities are fine, thank you very much. There ARE better ways to fund than regressive taxes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:38 PM Response to Reply #58 |
60. Still worried more about money, huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:54 PM Response to Reply #60 |
72. You seem to have some perception problems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Terran
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:11 AM Response to Reply #60 |
113. I don't think you fully understand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GOTV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:32 AM Response to Reply #60 |
118. Bullpucky! Money delivers healthcare, so money matters. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 PM Response to Reply #39 |
51. Why do something wrong, when you can just as easily do it right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:32 PM Response to Reply #51 |
56. Sick people trump money. Priorities. Sick people win. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:55 PM Response to Reply #56 |
73. Right, so why not look to more equitable ways to pay for health care? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Selatius
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:52 PM Response to Reply #56 |
83. Forget the sales tax. The proposal is regressive and would likely fail in Congress. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
diamidue
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 03:06 AM Response to Reply #83 |
91. Top 10% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Selatius
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 04:41 AM Response to Reply #91 |
93. Most people don't make 100,000 in a year anyway. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GOTV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:35 AM Response to Reply #91 |
120. I'm in that category and I'd gladly pay more taxes to cover everyone. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GOTV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:30 AM Response to Reply #39 |
117. That's no excuse for choosing a poor method of funding over a better method of funding... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Double T
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:40 PM Response to Original message |
17. On top of the 9% WE already pay? Soon we'll all be endorsing our....... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stinky The Clown
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:40 PM Response to Original message |
18. No .... such a tax is regressive and further, NO new taxes are needed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cutlassmama
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:41 PM Response to Original message |
19. No. Tax the rich. If it included medicines then I'd say Yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:42 PM Response to Original message |
20. Yes. Even though it is regressive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:47 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. I like your post best so far, we all know sales taxes are regressive but the overall good |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stinky The Clown
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 PM Response to Reply #23 |
27. I can't buy that argument ..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:11 PM Response to Reply #27 |
36. We don't need a new tax. But if it will sell it then I'm for it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GOTV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:42 AM Response to Reply #23 |
121. There's no sense in STARTING with an inherently flawed plan... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hekate
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:43 PM Response to Original message |
21. No.We have plenty of money elsewhere. #1The Pentagon.#2Repeal Bush's tax cuts.#3Insist corporations |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:46 PM Response to Original message |
22. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:16 PM Response to Reply #22 |
42. More important to get people insured NOW, worry about taxes later |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 PM Response to Original message |
24. ALL health care, absolutely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blondeatlast
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 PM Response to Original message |
25. Yes. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cloudbase
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:49 PM Response to Original message |
26. Maybe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:53 PM Response to Original message |
28. yes. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lone_Star_Dem
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 PM Response to Original message |
29. Yes, I would. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:57 PM Response to Original message |
30. Absolutely no - a 5% value added tax - but no sales tax. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:13 PM Response to Reply #30 |
38. Step 1, get everyone covered NOW. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:09 AM Response to Reply #38 |
94. The way congress works a sales tax once passed will never go away and will get larger so as to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:58 PM Response to Original message |
31. Yes, but I would prefer a large percentage come from the inflated military budget |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
juajen
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 09:59 PM Response to Original message |
33. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
iamtechus
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:04 PM Response to Original message |
34. Absolutely not! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:15 PM Response to Reply #34 |
40. Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:48 PM Response to Reply #40 |
81. Same argument, different target. Why not admit there could be health care |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
B Calm
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:08 PM Response to Original message |
35. We would be damn fools to not support a National Health Care program. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:16 PM Response to Original message |
43. Is a regressive tax the only workable method? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:19 PM Response to Reply #43 |
47. If it got everyone covered, then even a bad tax is worth it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SammyWinstonJack
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:52 AM Response to Reply #47 |
107. Problem with that is, once that bad tax is in place, it won't be repealed or changed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MiniMe
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 PM Response to Original message |
45. No, it is a regressive tax |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:21 PM Response to Reply #45 |
48. That's why we'll never have universal coverage. $$$ is more important than dying people. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:27 PM Response to Reply #48 |
52. Why do we need to start with a bad tax? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoonerPride
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:30 PM Response to Reply #52 |
55. The hypothetical was posed. To me I'd support any tax scheme. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Telly Savalas
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:47 PM Response to Reply #55 |
67. Ignoring fiscal issues is totally irresponsible. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MiniMe
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:51 PM Response to Reply #48 |
71. It can't be fixed if its a sales tax |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Selatius
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:54 PM Response to Reply #48 |
84. That's not what he's saying. That's a little harsh, don't you think? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:52 AM Response to Reply #48 |
124. Taxing the poor to line the pockets of the rich is not a greater good. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flaminbats
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 PM Response to Original message |
50. yes.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Solon
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:29 PM Response to Original message |
53. It wouldn't pay for UHC, at least not completely, it equals about 656 billion dollars in revenue... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChazII
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:30 PM Response to Original message |
54. yes. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:38 PM Response to Original message |
61. How about if we legalize & tax marijuana and cut the Military Budget down to 1/3 of what it is now? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wednesdays
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:39 PM Response to Original message |
62. I'd be afraid the rich would run and buy luxury items overseas |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mentalsolstice
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:44 PM Response to Original message |
64. No and yes, try a strict luxury tax first |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beyurslf
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:44 PM Response to Original message |
65. No. 5% tax on a $250,000 mortgage is $12,500. That's a big tax. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lorien
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:46 PM Response to Original message |
66. Yes, as long as the wealthy and corporations start paying their taxes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Robeson
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 10:48 PM Response to Original message |
68. Hell no. I'd support a 50% reduction in defense spending.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:00 PM Response to Reply #68 |
74. BINGO! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Giant Robot
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 PM Response to Original message |
76. I would support new taxes to pay for UHC |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dysfunctional press
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:14 PM Response to Original message |
78. absolutely NOT! it isn't necessary. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
1932
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:33 PM Response to Original message |
79. Is that the bargain the rich are going to force everyone else to enter into? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
IChing
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:36 PM Response to Original message |
80. What would be organized religions take on this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bbgrunt
![]() |
Mon Jul-16-07 11:49 PM Response to Original message |
82. no. tax capital gains and stock market transactions instead. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 12:25 AM Response to Original message |
85. Hell no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
western mass
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 01:06 AM Response to Original message |
86. Bulls** How about a tax CUT?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mykpart
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 02:30 AM Response to Original message |
87. Sales tax on luxury items only: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lone_Star_Dem
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 02:49 AM Response to Reply #87 |
90. Ferraris, Bentleys, Rolls-Royces', etc. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AndyTiedye
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 02:42 AM Response to Original message |
89. Sales Taxes Are Regressive and Inflationary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eridani
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 03:54 AM Response to Original message |
92. NO new taxes of any sort whatsoever are needed for universal health care |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JBear
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:23 AM Response to Original message |
96. No! Sales taxes are the worst regressive taxes! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bunkerbuster1
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:23 AM Response to Original message |
97. If that's what it really took to make it happen? Yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ganja Ninja
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:25 AM Response to Original message |
99. I would support a combination of taxes to pay for health-care. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alarimer
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:26 AM Response to Original message |
100. No. It's regressive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
w4rma
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:27 AM Response to Original message |
101. No. I don't support flat taxes. (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NewJeffCT
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:32 AM Response to Original message |
102. No - raise the top income tax rate and make the scale more progressive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vinca
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:33 AM Response to Original message |
103. How about taxes on everything bad for you instead ? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NeedleCast
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:38 AM Response to Original message |
105. Very much NO |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Big Pappa
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:38 AM Response to Original message |
106. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noonwitch
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:53 AM Response to Original message |
108. No, we already have a 6% sales tax at the state level |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bleedingheart
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 07:55 AM Response to Original message |
109. Yes...because it would mean I would no longer be paying $500 a month for my healthcare plan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RUMMYisFROSTED
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 08:51 AM Response to Original message |
110. No. A 30% reduction in "Defense" spending would more than do the trick. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 08:51 AM Response to Original message |
111. NO! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LanternWaste
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 08:57 AM Response to Original message |
112. Absolutely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dropkickpa
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:23 AM Response to Original message |
114. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GOTV
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:25 AM Response to Original message |
115. No. Why should the poor provide our healthcare? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
npincus
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:27 AM Response to Original message |
116. NO- stop spilling $$$ into this f*cking "occupation" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pitohui
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:32 AM Response to Original message |
119. no i can't afford it, reinstate taxes on the higher incomes as another poster said |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tierra_y_Libertad
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:44 AM Response to Original message |
122. Yes. Along with a 50% cut in the "defense budget". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 09:46 AM Response to Original message |
123. No. Sales taxes are regressive. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bandit
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
126. Yes; as a start most definitely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ilsa
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 10:16 AM Response to Original message |
127. Generally, no. Too regressive. Only on luxury items. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalDem
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:24 AM Response to Original message |
129. N O ! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EndElectoral
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:31 AM Response to Original message |
130. I would, but also income taxes on the wealthiest, AND pre-emptive defense spending cuts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JitterbugPerfume
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:37 AM Response to Original message |
131. yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JCMach1
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:40 AM Response to Original message |
132. hell no... NO REGRESSIVE taxes should fund this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nini
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 11:44 AM Response to Original message |
133. IF it got the program started and was used for nothing else - yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
anitar1
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 04:12 PM Response to Original message |
136. NO n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DFW
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 04:33 PM Response to Original message |
137. Never |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
librechik
![]() |
Tue Jul-17-07 04:36 PM Response to Original message |
138. yes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Fri Jun 21st 2024, 09:48 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC