Come on people, at least make your jabs GOOD.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10004352.2005.html

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The VA Insurance Program regularly measures its performance against and compares favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals. Because the VA Insurance program is similar to a commercial insurance company, it compares its performance with other private companies as a member of a life insurance industry trade association and a well-known organization that tracks customer satisfaction for commercial companies. Both organizations provide performance data on customer satisfaction, timeliness and other performance indicators. Results of the Insurance Industry Trade Association study indicate that the Insurance program consistently exceeds its benchmark targets and compares favorably to commercial life insurance companies. In addition, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), another performance study that tracks trends in customer satisfaction, provides benchmarking insights for commercial companies, and government agencies. The program's score of 90 out of a possible 100 in death awards processing exceeded the private life insurance sector's score of 75 and the federal government-wide score of 68.6. In the program's toll-free telephone service study, Insurance earned an overall score of 80 out of a possible 100, the highest score of Government agencies performing similar functions.

Evidence: ACSI Survey (May 2001); ACSI Survey (November 2003) Insurance Industry Turnaround Survey; VA 2006 Congressional Justification.

So can we expect you at the Crow Eating Thread? 

Dude, check my first post in the thread. I detail how the US medical system, with the least government involvement in the developed world, is among the least efficient.

You do have a point that the US government often does a terrible job of administrating public programs. That's a failure of your government, not a failure of public health care systems in general. There are a great deal of public or partially public health care systems that work much more effectively than the US private system.

It may not be easy, but it is possible to get better performance out of your government. They say that in democracies, people get the government they deserve...

I only used Ron Paul as the subject of a counterexample of your attack.  Portraying the Democratic agenda as even socialist is laughable, and trying to imply that it's advancing towards communism is just stupid.  That was the strawman I referred to.  And if that's not what you were trying to say, then why did you even mention it?  Not even really communist regimes like China, Vietnam, and the former USSR stuck to 100% government control.  And much of the hardships people in communist countries faced was due to the brutality and incompetence of the regimes in question rather than communism itself.  (Don't mistake that for a defense of communism!)

If government stopped supporting airlines, they would fail.  FAIL.  They're too greedy and incompetent to do otherwise, unless they jacked up the price so high the industry would be reduced to a shadow of its former self before it reached a capitalist equilibrium.  Maybe you're OK with that -- in which case I respect you a little more for sticking to your ideological guns -- but that is irrelevant to and doesn't change the fact that airline service in the US was more punctual, courteous, and all-around better before privatization.  At least, that's what I've heard; I'm not old enough to testify to that personally.  

woot

I would support a fair tax. 

FactCheck.org is about as neutral and accurate as they come.  Here's what they have to say about the FairTax:  

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

This is the Treasury Department's graph of who will pay what percentage of tax revenue under the FairTax as opposed to current tax law.  Notice how everyone is actually paying MORE except for the extremely poor and very rich?  

You should also check out the part about the misleading "tax-inclusive price" tax rate. 

In conclusion:  the FairTax would be LESS FAIR THAN THE CURRENT TAX SYSTEM.  (Giving handouts -- shades of welfare? -- to the poor while effectively dropping taxes on the rich and raising them on everyone else.) 

Riiiight... do you realize what percentage of the population is current paying that 53.5%?  

If the extreme minority of people is paying a majority of taxes I don't exactly call that fair. I can understand making those who make more pay more.  But what you aren't realizing is that the reason this tax is considered fair isn't because it reapportions who is paying what but because it is based on what these groups spend each year.  

What could be more fair then applying the same thing to every person and letting the fact that rich people spend more account for the extra they should pay?  If anything you are suggesting we punish people for saving money...that makes no sense.  

And I will also say that any system that doesn't involve a death tax is infinitely more fair than what we have now. Seriously who the F thought up the idea..."Oh hey...lets go to everyone who has just lost a love one and ask them for money!! And even better is that we have already taxed this when that person earned it so in addition to being a bunch of douchebags for thinking of it we are breaking one of the fundamental rules of not double taxing people...yes this plan is awesome!"

OK, I will admit that we perhaps are using competing senses of the word "fair".

But as for the estate tax:
A) You don't pay shit unless your estate is worth more than $1.5 million. [Correction: $2 million.]
B) You don't pay much unless it's more than $5 million.
C) Most such estates include very substantial assets that have grown in value in nontaxable ways, so
D) "Estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains." [edit: Or, in fact, it may be much more; see below.]

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit:  and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

(thanks FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html )

"We have found no study disputing these findings. In fact, they may be understated. For one thing the authors couldn't find any way to estimate the unrealized capital gains on art work or other collectibles, which can make up a sizeable part of some estates. More importantly, the very richest Americans aren't covered by this study, because the Federal Reserve Board survey on which the study is based doesn't include them. It is quite likely the averages are even higher for billionaires, whose fortunes are often built on appreciated stock or real estate that would go untaxed at their death but for the estate tax."