[peeb]

Think Progress » 41 days in Iraq vs. insuring 10 million children.

[tie]

An important point is that the insurance is for five years. (What kinds of idiots wrote this that they don't tell you that?)

Anyway, we all know what Bush and all the conservatives in this forum would prefer: 10 years in Iraq and no health insurance for anyone. Republicans nowadays like big, expensive government that wastes your tax money.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by tie 

An important point is that the insurance is for five years. (What kinds of idiots wrote this that they don't tell you that?)

Anyway, we all know what Bush and all the conservatives in this forum would prefer: 10 years in Iraq and no health insurance for anyone. Republicans nowadays like big, expensive government that wastes your tax money.

Not all Republicans. There are still some real conservatives left...

[Chongo]

Where in the constitution is health care mentioned (along with 90% of the things the federal government does)? It is not the responsibility of the federal government and best left to the states and counties to provide health for it's legal citizens. Defense is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government. The federal government has become the new landlord and we have become the new sharecroppers

[TheWOAT]

Health Insurance? Why not try to feed the hungry children of the world? Sally Struthers needs our help.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Where in the constitution is health care mentioned (along with 90% of the things the federal government does)? It is not the responsibility of the federal government and best left to the states and counties to provide health for it's legal citizens. Defense is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government. The federal government has become the new landlord and we have become the new sharecroppers

Yes, but Iraq has nothing to do with defense. Is nation-building in the Constitution? Are preemptive strikes based on fabricated WMD intelligence in the Constitution? The fact is, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We could spend it better here. Or--ideally--we could give it back to American taxpayers. (Of course the big-government conservatives would make sure only the über-rich got anything.)

Originally Posted by greenG4

Not all Republicans. There are still some real conservatives left...

Are there really one or two left?

[Face Ache]

Now that the wheels have dropped off the Right-wing wagon, it's a shame to see them dragging it through the dirt.

A real shame.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Yes, but Iraq has nothing to do with defense. Is nation-building in the Constitution? Are preemptive strikes based on fabricated WMD intelligence in the Constitution? The fact is, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We could spend it better here. Or--ideally--we could give it back to American taxpayers. (Of course the big-government conservatives would make sure only the über-rich got anything.)



Are there really one or two left?

There you go again, bringing facts into the discussion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by tie 

Is nation-building in the Constitution? Are preemptive strikes based on fabricated WMD intelligence in the Constitution?

I don't see how this invalidates Chongo's point. Two wrongs not making a right and such.

[peeb]

The fact that the constitution does not mandate federal health care does not mean that elected representatives cannot enact health care provisions.

[PB2K]

i am foreign : he asks to spend another 190 billion on his wars for the year 2008..to upgrade army bases and help prevent attacks like road bombs.

[Chongo]

Yes, but Iraq has nothing to do with defense. Is nation-building in the Constitution?

No, we are trying to secure the country after the war.

Are preemptive strikes based on fabricated WMD intelligence in the Constitution?

What, were we to wait until someone releases Sarin gas in the subways of New York or Boston?

Bill Clinton used the same intelligence when he justified sending cruise missiles into Iraq

BTW they were there, but with all the telegraphing coming from democrats, Saddam had time to move them to Syria and other places.
OpinionJournal - Extra
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in Syria
UN Says: WMDs Smuggled From Iraq; Canadian PM Says in Terrorist Hands {Re-posting}
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

The fact is, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We could spend it better here.

Better yet eliminate taxes [Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org and let me give the money to the charities of my choice!.

Or--ideally--we could give it back to American taxpayers.
Good, I like my idea better

Of course the big-government conservatives(oxymoron!) would make sure only the über-rich got anything.

There are more rich Democrats in congress than Republicans

[tie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see how this invalidates Chongo's point. Two wrongs not making a right and such.

Chongo's point was that it was better to waste hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars in Iraq because defense is in the Constitution, while health care for children is not. My point is that neither one is in the Constitution.

Myself, I don't agree that a spending item not being in the Constitution makes it a "wrong," so this has nothing to do with two wrongs making a right. But I'm just pointing out that his argument against health care and for Iraq works equally well as an argument against Iraq. So, I think that invalidates his point.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes, but Iraq has nothing to do with defense. Is nation-building in the Constitution?

No, we are trying to secure the country after the war.

So, once more, is nation building in the Constitution?

What, were we to wait until someone releases Sarin gas in the subways of New York or Boston?

Let me guess, you support the war on Iraq, but you don't support the war on terror. Did Iraq attack us on 9/11, or did that other guy -- you know, what's his name? Typical.

BTW they were there, but with all the telegraphing coming from democrats, Saddam had time to move them to Syria and other places.

And I heard the Martians picked them up, and hid them on Venus. Does it somehow make you feel better about wasting $2 trillion on Iraq, by believing that the WMD were secretly teleported to a different dimension? You conspiracy-theorists are so dumb.

Better yet eliminate taxes [Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org and let me give the money to the charities of my choice!.

Do you honestly support this? And yet at the same time, you support spending trillions of dollars in Iraq. I don't believe you. You seem like just another big-government Republican. Don't pretend to support small government, and at the same time support spending trillions of dollars on foreign adventures. That's disgustingly two-faced.

[besson3c]

Maybe we should strike a compromise here and put the money into providing health insurance for 10 million Iraqi children?

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe we should strike a compromise here and put the money into providing health insurance for 10 million Iraqi children?

Actually, I think Bush would probably go for that.

[spacefreak]

Why must "children" be redefined to mean anyone of the age of 25 or younger? And why must "needy" include those making 4 times the poverty rate? And why the lack of a need for proof of citizenship to claim these grand benefits?

People need to lay off the satellite dishes and flatscreen TVs and start paying for their own health insurance if they want it. Or press their state to implement a program like Massachusetts.

[Big Mac]

If the Iraq War was not seen as vital to American interests, Congress should not have voted to authorize it. It did. Chongo is absolutely right when he notes that the federal government has no mandate to provide health care but does have a mandate to promote national security. While the federal government could vote in another mandate like the expansion of the SCHIP entitlement program, all such acts of Congress that fall outside of its enumerated Article II powers are, from a logical standpoint, Constitutionally defective. Congress got around that substantial constraint by way of judicial trickery by Justice Marshall and we've paid for it ever since. Besides all that, SCHIP has ballooned in cost relative to its original projections, and there's no reason to believe quadrupling the (edit->) scope of the entitlement would help in the least to keep costs under control.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Why must "children" be redefined to mean anyone of the age of 25 or younger? And why must "needy" include those making 4 times the poverty rate? And why the lack of a need for proof of citizenship to claim these grand benefits?

People need to lay off the satellite dishes and flatscreen TVs and start paying for their own health insurance if they want it. Or press their state to implement a program like Massachusetts.

I completely agree with this. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that our money is better spent on this program than in Iraq. It is far better for our country. And yet, you support the war.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe we should strike a compromise here and put the money into providing health insurance for 10 million Iraqi children?

I kind of like that idea!