Change we can believe in. The Peoples Republic of America

[-Cp]

Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.

Dude.... What are you talking about?

Please try Hooked on Phonics and stay on topic to the OP..

 

[dilloduck]

Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.

gimme a clue----do I add or subtract ? ( long division maybe ? )

 

[AllieBaba]

You are already paying for everyone's healthcare.

Overpaying as a matter of fact.

Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get healthcare. ANYONE. It does not matter if they can pay or not. And who do you think pays for that healthcare? We all do. WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. An incredibly expensive and inefficient version of it.

So why not make it more expensive, worse overall, and take out all opportunity of individual choice when it comes down to our health care?

 

[SwingVoter]

So those on the left, which party are you for? You are making the argument that the 'right' has delivered, are you sure you want to go there?

Bush has been great on delivering left-wing policies like bigger gov't, a weak policy on Pakistan, and has freed gov't bureaucrats from the layoff fear they developed under Al Gore's reinventing gov't plan. If you're on the left, you should be more appreciative of what W's done for you.

 

[SwingVoter]

Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.

OMG I agree with Kirk!!!!! Where do I order the tinfoil hat?

Seriously though, W's Medicare Drug program alone is $60 billion.

Also Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security, and other mandatory entitlements combined add up to over $1.4 TRILLION, or 74% of the Fed budget excluding Defense and Interest. Yet neither W or Mac has any plan to make deep cuts to any of these social engineering programs that eat up most of our tax dollars. Therefore, they've resorted to chasing little earmark programs which the Federal Treasury would hardly notice if they were canceled.

 

[SwingVoter]

So why not make it more expensive, worse overall, and take out all opportunity of individual choice when it comes down to our health care?

What choice do I have when the gov't demands that I pay for other people's health insurance via Medicare and Medicaid?

 

[Chris]

OMG I agree with Kirk!!!!! Where do I order the tinfoil hat?

Seriously though, W's Medicare Drug program alone is $60 billion.

Also Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security, and other mandatory entitlements combined add up to over $1.4 TRILLION, or 74% of the Fed budget excluding Defense and Interest. Yet neither W or Mac has any plan to make deep cuts to any of these social engineering programs that eat up most of our tax dollars. Therefore, they've resorted to chasing little earmark programs which the Federal Treasury would hardly notice if they were canceled.

That is my point. McBush and the mayor from nowhere railing about earmarks is a joke. Earmarks are nothing.

 

[Chris]

So why not make it more expensive, worse overall, and take out all opportunity of individual choice when it comes down to our health care?

That's a falacy. Under a single payer system everyone choses their own doctor. It's actually more free choice than an HMO.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

 

[frazzledgear]

No recent president has been more Socialist than Bush. He's increased spending 3 points as a share of GDP over his Democratic predecessor, enacted the biggest move to socialized medicine since LBJ with Medicare Part D, and had a liberal spending agenda ranging on issues from No Child Left Behind to AIDS in Africa.

Only difference with Bush socialism and the Dems is that his will be paid out of future tax increases. I don't like big gov't, but tax-and-spend certainly beats borrow-and-spend.

First of all, a President doesn't determine spending -Congress does. A President doesn't draw up the budget -Congress does. Presidents learned a long time ago that vetoing Congress' budget has some really bad consequences for that President -especially if he belongs to the other party. So which party controls Congress -and have you noticed that rate of increasing spending took a huge jump when Democrats took over? Even though people were already squealing about the smaller rate of increase that occurred under Republicans? Same thing happened under Reagan -a Democrat Congress which went nuts with spending after Republican tax cuts increased government revenues. (Liberals just absolutely refuse to believe that tax cuts usually increase government revenues in the long run while tax hikes will end up reducing government revenues within just a few years -just too counterintuitive to their limited critical thinking skills.) Whenever Democrats control Congress -their rate of increase in spending is always significantly higher than it is under a Republican one. But no matter which party controls Congress -it ONLY goes up and never goes down. The amount of money thrown down rat holes and programs proven to have totally failed to accomplish any part of the very purpose they were created -is mindboggling.

Don't forget -Obama voted AGAINST de-funding an entire list of programs the OMB said had all failed in their mission, had not accomplished a single one of the goals Congress had set out for them and totally wasted their budget year after year. Democrats are far more unwilling to de-fund failed programs -so Obama doesn't represent any "change" here at all. Like most Democrats, he is convinced that government knows much better how to spend YOUR money -than YOU DO.

Second of all -how much a government spends doesn't equal "socialism". Better go check the dictionary on this one. Spending on AIDS and "No Child Left Behind" is in no way "socialism". Taking over an entire private industry like healthcare -IS. Even the Medicare Part D is simply adding to one program the government has been funding for decades -for the very same people that program was intended for all along. It doesn't represent any increase in socialism either.

Healthcare is NOT a "right" at all and I'm tired of hearing people say it is! No one in this country has a "right" to the goods and services produced by someone else, no one has a "right" to the identical quality of ANY goods and services as someone else. Healthcare isn't even something every single person MUST have in order to live.

So why haven't you "healthcare-is-a-right" whackos also insisted that those things EVERY single person really must have in order to live - aren't a "right" too. No such thing as a right to "free" food, shelter and clothing -paid for by heavily taxing everyone so that government can more ineffeciently turn around and provide food, shelter and clothing to each of us. Yet we as a society managed to figure out how to provide these things for those who cannot -to the point the biggest healthcare problem of our poorest is OBESITY. We provide it for those who cannot afford it -but without demanding that others forfeit not just their own standard of living, but their ability to purchase a higher quality of it if they so choose.

What liberals and socialists are REALLY insisting when it comes to healthcare, is that not only does everyone have a "right" to the services of those who chose a different occupation from your own own, but that everyone must have the identical quality of that service -even it means bringing DOWN the quality of healthcare for the majority. The majority can purchase a higher quality of food, shelter and clothing -but it is "obscene" if they can also afford to purchase a higher level of healthcare.

So their "best and ONLY" solution is a government takeover of the entire industry. They want policies that can and WILL bring down the quality of care for everyone (which is all a government-run industry can do) instead of seeking policies that are targeting ONLY to those on the short end in order to improve their quality of service closer to the top and with greater access to that higher quality. (Which is what private sector/government partnerships that specifically target those on the short end would be most likely to do -but without decreasing the quality of care to everyone else as a consequence.)

Liberals are the citizens of this country most ignorant of history, most short-sighted and the MOST unimaginative minds in the country when it comes to finding the best solutions for social ills and problems. Their imagination is best suited for the arts, not solving society's problems. And their kneejerk response when faced with any social problem is proof of that. "Uhhh, MORE GOVERNMENT, of course!"

Where in the Constitution does it list healthcare as a "right" first of all -enough of making up non-existent ones here. Then where does it demand that I must forfeit the quality of my own healthcare, forfeit my health and possibly forfeit my life expectancy (at least one or more of which has been the result in every country that did this) - so that a fraction of the population that cannot afford adequate healthcare insurance coverage can get it? Where does it say THE best and only possible way to help those who cannot afford it, is by forcing the majority to reduce their own standard of living?