Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose?

41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose?
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 01:45 PM
 
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 06:34 PM
 
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.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cardboard Box
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
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...
<Witty comment here>
www.healthwebit.com
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 07:35 PM
 
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
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 07:47 PM
 
Health Insurance? Why not try to feed the hungry children of the world? Sally Struthers needs our help.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
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?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 09:35 PM
 
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.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
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.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
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  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 03:32 PM
 
The fact that the constitution does not mandate federal health care does not mean that elected representatives cannot enact health care provisions.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 04:38 PM
 
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.
{Animated sigs are not allowed.}
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 05:04 PM
 
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
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
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.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
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.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 05:57 PM
 
Maybe we should strike a compromise here and put the money into providing health insurance for 10 million Iraqi children?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
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.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 06:11 PM
 
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.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 06:27 PM
 
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.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Sep 26, 2007 at 08:09 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
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.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
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!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 04:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that our money is better spent on this program than in Iraq. It is far better for our country.

No.

This is sort of like comparing apples and hand grenades.

Spending that money on the program would be bad for the country no matter what. You don't expand a government program when you can accomplish the same thing with tax code. This seems to be one of the few times Bush is nailing it right on the head and is acting like a real conservative. Even hardcore socialists (assuming one considers oneself American) can learn something from this. If you want more people covered, call to change the tax code more. The only people the government should worry about providing health care to are the people who don't pay taxes.

As for the hand grenades... The United States made a commitment to the country of Iraq and its people. Until such time as the length of that commitment is in question (2009) my opinions on the validity of the commitment - or the veracity of the ****heads in government who made the commitment - is irrelevant. What's done is done. There is no do-over. Meanwhile, what hurts our country (and theirs) is not following through on our commitment, of which the money we are spending is but one example of this woeful inadequacy.

Neither of these are really questions of fiscal responsibility, more like philosophical responsibility.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 04:48 AM
 
Number one: I didn't read the article and I'm not going to but the title suggests a false dichotomy. It's not as if we have to choose between only these two choices.

Number two: Just because we can do something don't mean it's to be done. You can drive a car with your feet if you want to but that don't make it a good f*ckin' idea.* You can apply this reasoning to Iraq if you wish but it applies to American Nanny-careâ„¢ as well for reasons that have been repeated many, many times.

Number three: I'm tired of the left acting as if the ONLY "cure" for this "problem" is a government takeover. You guys are about as original Carlos Men-steal-ya.

Number four: Constitutionality is relevant because those who want a national healthcare system in this country are constantly saying that it is a right. I'm sure the long term plan is to tip the supreme court to the left again and have a ruling saying exactly this. Just like the Roe v. Wade sham.

Number five: there are many, many things that could and should be done to fix a lot of problems in this country. I'm not talking about NEW departments and NEW programs and bureaucracies. I'm talking about simply eliminating or revamping taxes and repealing bazillions of stupid laws that do nothing positive for anyone…except maybe certain politicians and lobbyists.

Number six: why is it that if a third world country goes and creates havoc in another country or region then it should be AMERICA that run to the rescue, but if WE do the same we are supposed to run away from the problem? This idea that if we leave Iraq it will magically fix itself is a pipe dream.

Number seven: The main problem with illustrating the issue in the way the articles title suggests is that it gives the false impression that there WILL be that choice made. If you really think that a Democrat president will get us out of Iraq I have a bridge to sell ya. The real, underhanded reason they are pushing so hard to get out NOW is because they all know that there is no way they can pull us out while in office because they will then be blamed for the horrendous consequences that followed. Mark my words, no President, whether they have a D or an R by their name, will get us out of Iraq any time soon. So you with any nationalized nanny-care scheme we will be paying out the nose ON TOP OF any costs from Iraq or any other current programs that WON"T BE CUT.

Number eight: I have NO IDEA why I have numbered these paragraphs.



*props to Chris Rock
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 06:07 AM
 
I wonder how many people we could have fed here in the US had we not went to Bosnia...

BTW, and it's been a long time since I've done this.

But that was indeed a spacecraft smackdown above.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe we should strike a compromise here and put the money into providing health insurance for 10 million Iraqi children?
Hell, I'd be happy if it were spent on children in general.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 08:02 AM
 
waiting to HAVE KIDS until you can AFFORD to take care of them? Interesting concept huh? It's part of that responsibility thing.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hell, I'd be happy if it were spent on children in general.
We could start here in the PL.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
waiting to HAVE KIDS until you can AFFORD to take care of them? Interesting concept huh? It's part of that responsibility thing.
Pity the world doesn't fit into your moral framework, huh?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Pity the world doesn't fit into your moral framework, huh?
MORAL FRAMEWORK? How about NOT being stupid and impulsive?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
waiting to HAVE KIDS until you can AFFORD to take care of them? Interesting concept huh? It's part of that responsibility thing.
Why punish the kids for the acts of their parents?

"Learn to swim"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 12:36 PM
 
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.
No I support both.

Hitler and National Socialist Germany did not attack us either, but we went to war with them. In fact the left did not want us to get involved in the war in Europe at all, until the collectivist Hitler attached collectivist U.S.S.R., then lo and be hold, we needed to get involved ASAP. By your logic we should have just dealt with Japan, since they were they one that attacked us, and left the French to fend for themselves.

Iraq did not attack us, but was supplying money to al Qaeda and giving it a safe haven to train, as was Afghanistan. And as the articles listed cite, even the UN has acknowledged that much of the WMD is now in Syria. Had we left Saddam in power it was only a matter of time before WMD ended up in the hands of terrorist coming over the Canadian border and being used in some American city. The left would be calling for Bush's head on a platter if that happened, and rightly so.

The left was crying that Bush 41 was left in power, now they bitch because we took him out.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No I support both.

Hitler and National Socialist Germany did not attack us either, but we went to war with them. In fact the left did not want us to get involved in the war in Europe at all, until the collectivist Hitler attached collectivist U.S.S.R., then lo and be hold, we needed to get involved ASAP. By your logic we should have just dealt with Japan, since they were they one that attacked us, and left the French to fend for themselves.
Bush wasn't president then, so it doesn't matter.
Iraq did not attack us, but was supplying money to al Qaeda and giving it a safe haven to train, as was Afghanistan. And as the articles listed cite, even the UN has acknowledged that much of the WMD is now in Syria. Had we left Saddam in power it was only a matter of time before WMD ended up in the hands of terrorist coming over the Canadian border and being used in some American city. The left would be calling for Bush's head on a platter if that happened, and rightly so.

The left was crying that Bush 41 was left in power, now they bitch because we took him out.
That is the act of political zealots. They only care about "sides" and "blaming the other guy" Left or Right.

These same people screamed liar! and impeachement when Bush said Iraq had WMDs. But no one remembers when Clinton said it. (He even said they had nukes! And that we were going to bomb his nuke factories!)

"Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

OMG!11 LIAR! How many people did Clinton MURDER by sending bombs to Iraq under the premise of such lies!11

Lets hang him.!1

Most people believed Iraq had these. Up until election time. Then the left was desperate and started shifting sides to polarize America into two sides. They were more concerned with winning the election, then what they were doing to the country.

Karma bit them on the ass though. Twice.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No.
This is sort of like comparing apples and hand grenades.
Spending that money on the program would be bad for the country no matter what. You don't expand a government program when you can accomplish the same thing with tax code.
No.
The Republicans have had 6 years of controlling all of the arms of government, and they have failed to fix health care through the tax code. It's time to try something else.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
No.
The Republicans have had 6 years of controlling all of the arms of government, and they have failed to fix health care through the tax code. It's time to try something else.
And the Clintons had 8 years to fix it, and it was evening what they RAN on "We are gonna fix health care" and did not either. (Not that I am placing the blame solely on them either..)

Nothing will be fixed till this country can get over it's selfish polarized political "Left vs Right" political zealousness. And realize we all are from the same place.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
And the Clintons had 8 years to fix it, and it was evening what they RAN on "We are gonna fix health care" and did not either. (Not that I am placing the blame solely on them either..)
They didn't manage to pass their reforms, which is not the same as the Bush Regime, who has had complete control of the legislative machine. Clinton's was a political failure - their health care reform never got the chance to be tested.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No I support both.

Hitler and National Socialist G
You officially loose this debate.
Godwin's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
No.
The Republicans have had 6 years of controlling all of the arms of government, and they have failed to fix health care through the tax code. It's time to try something else.

And your rationale is?

I'm not being narky. I can think of a half dozen different reasons why you would make this statement, and I want to be sure to address the one you have rather than the one I imagine.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 03:22 PM
 
One line of opposition to the health care reforms proposed by Hillary is that it is better to fix health care through the tax code.
Republicans have failed to fix health care through the tax code after six years. It it were a good idea to use the tax code to address health care issues, they would have been able to do it.
Given that the tax code does not appear to be a good way to fix health care, why not give something else a spin?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
One line of opposition to the health care reforms proposed by Hillary is that it is better to fix health care through the tax code.
Republicans have failed to fix health care through the tax code after six years. It it were a good idea to use the tax code to address health care issues, they would have been able to do it.
Given that the tax code does not appear to be a good way to fix health care, why not give something else a spin?

Thanks for the clarification.

I see at least one, maybe two, logical fallacies here.

The first is that you are correlating the idea with the execution. I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, but you have to get around a bunch of things that may have caused the execution and the idea not to match, for reasons which have nothing to do with the idea itself. Focus on the Iraq situation comes immediately to mind.

Secondly, even if one were to assume the Republicans enacted the idea fully and completely, you are mistaken in assuming the priority they give to the problem is the same is yours. Judging from what I've read so far, I think I'm safe in saying you give it a higher priority than they do. In this situation it is quite possible the failure you perceive is one of differing priorities rather than a flawed concept.

This is what I was said in the last post. If the Republicans didn't fix the code enough, you fix it more.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thanks for the clarification.
I see at least one, maybe two, logical fallacies here.

The first is that you are correlating the idea with the execution. I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, but you have to get around a bunch of things that may have caused the execution and the idea not to match, for reasons which have nothing to do with the idea itself. Focus on the Iraq situation comes immediately to mind.

Secondly, even if one were to assume the Republicans enacted the idea fully and completely, you are mistaken in assuming the priority they give to the problem is the same is yours. Judging from what I've read so far, I think I'm safe in saying you give it a higher priority than they do. In this situation it is quite possible the failure you perceive is one of differing priorities rather than a flawed concept.

This is what I was said in the last post. If the Republicans didn't fix the code enough, you fix it more.
So you are saying either:
1. The Republicans fixed the tax code badly, that that their 'fixes' didn't work properly, or;
2. They never really wanted to fix the problem.

In either case, I don't see that that is much of an argument for taking their advice on how to fix health care very seriously at this point.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
So you are saying either:
1. The Republicans fixed the tax code badly, that that their 'fixes' didn't work properly, or;

There could be any number of reasons. The reason I presented was preoccupation with the occupation. The point is there are too many variables for you to make the direct correlation between the idea and the result that you seem to be making.


Originally Posted by peeb View Post
2. They never really wanted to fix the problem.

Certainly not to the level that either you or I would be satisified. The point here is to show that the problem isn't necessarily a flaw in the idea, but a difference in opinion as to the proper magnitude of its execution.

What both of these have in common is that they illustrate the numerous pitfalls one encounters when they try and judge an idea based on its adherents. An idea should be judged on the merits of the idea.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You officially loose this debate.
Godwin's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EEEEEHHHH wrong. Per the law I am not comparing anyone to Hitler or calling them a Nazi.
My point is the Hollywood left only got behind the war when it looked like the wrong collectivists were going to win the war. As long as Germany was at peace with Lenin, they were for staying out of the war in Europe. If they knew that the Russian winter was going to get the best of the German army, they would have been pushing for peace. Why do you think the lefties wanted us to leave Saddam alone? He was a secular Stalinist.

This can be boiled down do you believe in collectivism or individualism? Who knows what's best for you, the government or yourself? I can decide what's best for me thank you.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What both of these have in common is that they illustrate the numerous pitfalls one encounters when they try and judge an idea based on its adherents. An idea should be judged on the merits of the idea.
Well there we agree - I guess I just don't see that anyone has enumerated any merits to the tax code solution, except that it has been reliable so far in producing no progress. Seems to me that that is what the NeoCons like most about it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Well there we agree - I guess I just don't see that anyone has enumerated any merits to the tax code solution, except that it has been reliable so far in producing no progress. Seems to me that that is what the NeoCons like most about it.
and the NeoComs want to use the tax code to enslave us to the goverment
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
EEEEEHHHH wrong. Per the law I am not comparing anyone to Hitler or calling them a Nazi.

This can be boiled down do you believe in collectivism or individualism? Who knows what's best for you, the government or yourself? I can decide what's best for me thank you.
It appears that opinion is divided on the exact interpretation of Godwin's Law (In the Name of the Law) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

You're absolutely wrong in saying that anything useful can be gained by boiling complex issues down to "Who knows what's best for you, the government or yourself?"
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
and the NeoComs want to use the tax code to enslave us to the goverment
Yes, because altering the tax code is an entirely appropriate use of the word 'enslave', and Bush and crowd have not presided over the hugest increase in government spending since government spending began.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
They didn't manage to pass their reforms, which is not the same as the Bush Regime, who has had complete control of the legislative machine.
Oh I get it, it was the Right's fault back then too. When a lefty is in power, everything that goes wrong is the "Righty" congress. Gotcha.
Clinton's was a political failure - their health care reform never got the chance to be tested.
It was bogus. And not thought out too well. It was their pom poms. Hillary was spending too much time riding on Bill's coat-tails hoping to be President one day. I am sure she is still using healthcare reforms as a running goal.

And everyone will be taxed to death for the Good of the Peopleâ„¢
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Yes, because altering the tax code is an entirely appropriate use of the word 'enslave', and Bush and crowd have not presided over the hugest increase in government spending since government spending began.
You know a good way to really increase spending? Cut military and intelligence spending in the 90s to "balance the budget" when we needed it the most. That way, when we do get attacked and have to put loads of money that should have never been removed back into the Military people can complain "But Clinton balanced the budget"

Any moron could have done what he did. One of the main jobs of our country is protection. Never touch military or intelligence spending.

Esp in a decade that we were getting attacked by terrorists right and left.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:53 PM
 
Look, the fact is that Bush has increased government spending by MUCH more than Clinton did, sure, we're not paying the bill yet, it's on the credit card for our kids to deal with. Much better. People are tired of politicians who don't think there is a health care crisis - sure - there's not one for them - THEY have the govt funded health care they are trying to protect everyone else from!
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
You know a good way to really increase spending? Cut militart and intelligence spending in the 90s to "balance the budget" when we needed it the most. That way, when we do get attacked and have to put loads of money that should have never been removed back into the Military people can complain "But Clinton balanced the budget"

Any moron could have done what he did. One of the main jobs of our country is protection. Never touch military or intelligence spending.

Esp in a decade that we were getting attacked by terrorists right and left.
Pork spending for Halliburton and Bush's cronies could not have, and has not, made the US any safer. It is not being attacked because it did not spend enough money on defense, but because it has a stupid and immoral foreign policy. Wake up.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Look, the fact is that Bush has increased government spending by MUCH more than Clinton did,
HE HAD TO. All the money Clinton took away from Military and Intelligence spending to "balance the budget" was HURTING us. Not that the Clinton's were ever fans of the military. Or vice versa. You'd think after the FIRST TIME the WTC was attacked by terrorists back in the early 90s Clinton would have thought "Hmm.. maybe I should put more money into intelligence" But no, he did the opposite while pretending none of these events were happening. USS Cole was another... just ignore it and it will go away. Well it didn't. And when it DID get worse SHORTLY AFTER Bush took office all the lefties screamed "BUSH WAS WARNED!111" WTF were we doing the 8 years before that? Not enough that's for sure.

Clinton told the people that he would be HARDER on Iraq than Bush Sr was. That is why I voted for Clinton back in the early 90s. He lied to me. He did diddly. And a lot of people died in those 8 years that didn't need to. I am betting more people died during the 90s during Saddam reign than all of the war. As a matter of fact, Saddam holds the world record of gassing his own people.
sure, we're not paying the bill yet, it's on the credit card for our kids to deal with. Much better. People are tired of politicians who don't think there is a health care crisis - sure - there's not one for them - THEY have the govt funded health care they are trying to protect everyone else from!
And I am tired of the left over-exaggerating the "crises" for shilly reasons.

Both sides of the political zealot zone need to STFU.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2