I really hate to tell you, but yes, it really is about "life isn't fair". The sooner you can come to terms with that, the sooner you can stop blaming the "wealthy" and the "rigged system" for being the cause of the situation you and other "unlucky" people are in. Only then you can stop playing the victim and start realizing that some hard work really will improve your situation.

Do some people have some "unfair" advantages? Absolutely! But that's life. This situation should not stop you from working hard to better yourself. Mind your own business, don't worry about what other people have, and focus on your own situation. Stop crying "unfair". The very "fairness" measures you preach are the exact things holding you down. The more "fairness" and "income equality" measures a society takes, the less opportunities there are for individuals. Fortunately in America, we haven't completely digressed to those levels yet, so there is still a chance to better yourself with some hard work.

And don't even start with the "you didn't build that" line. A good teacher in your past or a road in front of your business is no guarantee of success. You are the sum of your own decisions and efforts. The most successful people I know failed many times, and kept at it until they succeeded. They accepted that life was not fair and moved on. What they DIDN'T do was complain about "fairness", "equality", or blame "class disparities" for their problems. They minded their own business, worked hard, didn't look for other people to pay their way, and took responsibility for their own actions.

Life is not fair and there will never be any such thing as income equality. Utopia does not exist. The only thing we can guarantee by pursuing income "equality" and "fairness" is an equal share of misery.

"The town doesn't have insufficient funds"

So does that mean the town has sufficient funds? :)

Has nobody introduced these people to the concept of "cups"?

In other news, the sky is falling.

It's not his fault. If you are seventeen and going to NYU, then I think you fall under a federal mandate that requires you to be a liberal.

Flashback to the 1980's...

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2012/04/the-disco-blasting-robot-waiters-of-1980s-pasadena/

Just because the bill has "affordable" in the name, does not mean insurance will magically become affordable. With a 2,409 page bill, nobody really knows what will happen with health insurance prices. At best, the bill is a gamble with hopes it will reduce prices.

As it stands, the court struck down the requirements that states expand medicaid. So depending on the state you live in, you may get the tax increase and get nothing in return. Depending on how that pans out, this may end up being once giant tax on those who already can't afford health insurance.

> If you don’t know any details about the Health Care Act please stop talking

...and you have read all 2,409 pages? I have yet to encounter anyone who has. This is the problem, nobody full understand how this mess of a bill will pan out. the bulk of the bill itself is a reason to repeal it.

> how it BENEFITS you vs. the cost to you

So we should disregard how this bill will impact us as a nation and only look at the selfish benefits that it will offer us personally? If this is what we have become as a nation, we have a very dark future ahead of us.

Seems just a play on words. "We're not telling you to obey us, we're just punishing you if you don't obey us".

When viewed as a tax, this law is doing exactly what Obama said he wouldn't do... raise taxes on the poor and middle class. So if you can't afford health insurance, you are now saddled with an added tax burden. Granted the tax is less than the insurance, but still it's a blow to those struggling to make ends meet.

Question of the day: Now that this ruling is out, is there anything the government *can't* mandate you to do/buy under the premise of taxation?

@ForReallyReal You got it!

It's interesting that the income tax is now so ingrained in our psyche that it's difficult for many to think of a world without it. Yet, a number of states operate just fine without it.

You may never see the money, but it's still YOUR money before the government confiscated it. You earned it.

I have no problem with taxes, however I do have a problem with income taxes. An income tax is basically the equivalent of the government saying that you do not have the right to all the fruits of your labor. They steak claim to a portion of your livelihood and you are gracious for whatever portion they allow you to keep. In essence it's part-time slavery. It shouldn't be anybody's (especially the government's) business to know how much money you make.

There many forms of taxation the government can use to raise funds. The income tax just happens to be the most vile, abusive, and manipulative form. It also happens to be the most power giving, so I doubt we will ever seen and end to it.

Contrary to what many are thinking, I'm actually very happy we live in a country where we have a "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance". I'd be more upset if I lived in a country where groups like this were banned because someone somewhere deemed being fat as bad. Last I checked, we still have individual freedom. If being fat makes someone happy, then more power to them... and I see nothing wrong with them forming a group to promote acceptance of that. However, on the flip side, I don't want to have to pay for their poor health choices... but that is a sperate debate in and of itself.

I think at the root of this issue is a confused message. Disney is making the superheros fit and the villans fat. It can be construed as fighting bad habits, but it can also be taken as fighting fat people themselves ("hey, let's beat up the fat kid!"). The message is in poor taste. They should have crafted something better to promote a positive message that encourages overweight kids to adopt better habits.

Part of me is outraged that they have government lunch inspectors in school and that our tax money is being used to pay for this violation of parents' right to raise their children.

The other part of me is asking... well, what do you honestly expect when sending your kid to a government run school? In general, most parents are more than happy to push the responsibility of educating their children off onto the government without even a second thought. Many even look to the schools to raise their kids. Then they are "shocked" when the government actually does assume the role of mommy and daddy.

There is no such thing as an unbiased education and "public education" is a euphemism. If you want you kids to learn to look to government to solve all their problems, then send them to a government run school. This is just more proof of that.