[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Britain also has a hybrid system - every modern economy does. You can choose your own private health care provider if you want to. The government intervenes to make sure that everyone can have healthcare.

I wouldn't mind it if people were against the expansion (notice that I did not say "introduction") of public health care services if people would get their damn facts and information straight...

I know that it is hard to wade through all the stupid Republican Hilary Clinton health care era recycled nonsense that is making a resurgence, but the information is out there.

Before somebody embarrasses themselves, yes, you can even choose your own doctor in Canada!

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Before somebody embarrasses themselves, yes, you can even choose your own doctor in Canada!

Which means you choose a doctor in America right?




Heyyyyy-o. Zing!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which means you choose a doctor in America right?




Heyyyyy-o. Zing!

Actually, Toronto has some *very* good world renown doctors and hospitals, as well as the best or one of the best ambulance service in North America. I don't know whether the same could be said for the rest of Canada though...

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Actually, Toronto has some *very* good world renown doctors and hospitals, as well as the best or one of the best ambulance service in North America. I don't know whether the same could be said for the rest of Canada though...

Aw... poop.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Aw... poop.

We also make some of the world's finest poop.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm glad you mention Wal-Mart, since the taxpayer cuts them a 1.7bn check every year for health care for their workers.

I thought you wanted everyone in government health plans. What do you think will happen once the government comes out with their health plan. Corporations will drop health plans from their benefits packages and we will be forced to go to the government for our health care. Why should I provide a health care plan for my employees when the government has one? Why didn't Hillary do anything when she sat on the Wal-Mart board of directors?('86-'92)

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I thought you wanted everyone in government health plans.

Well then you obviously didn't read my postings.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What do you think will happen once the government comes out with their health plan. Corporations will drop health plans from their benefits packages and we will be forced to go to the government for our health care.

Have you read Hillary's proposal? If they don't offer them, they have to pay into the govt system anyway.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Why should I provide a health care plan for my employees when the government has one?

Same reason companies in Britain offer health plans as a benefit when the government already has one - to attract the best employees.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

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.

I went back like you suggested.

The Democrats had control of congress for the first two years.
This required everyone to participate in the nationalized health care system. There would be legal consequences for anyone that sought medical outside of that system, for the doctor and patient alike. It would be paid for by a $1 per pack cigarette tax hike. This would require new smokers to replace the ones that quit or died at the same time putting money in the pockets of "Big Tobacco"

Again, why didn't Hillary do anything while she sat on the Wal-Mart board?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Democrats had control of congress for the first two years.
This required everyone to participate in the nationalized health care system.

Which America have you been living in? When was everyone required to participate in a nationalized health care system?

It seems like you are talking about proposals from close on a decade ago that were never enacted - have you even read the current proposals?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Again, why didn't Hillary do anything while she sat on the Wal-Mart board?

I have no idea.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Which America have you been living in? When was everyone required to participate in a nationalized health care system?

It seems like you are talking about proposals from close on a decade ago that were never enacted - have you even read the current proposals?
.

The camel's nose under the tent, pretty soon the whole camels is in. Hillary learned from her first attempt, she wanted to do it all in one shot. Now it is incrementalism, start with the kids, make it optional,then work your way up. Just like a frog, if you drop it in boiling water it jumps out. put it in when the water is cool and slowly turn up the heat, before it knows, frog soup.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The camel's nose under the tent, pretty soon the whole camels is in. Hillary learned from her first attempt, she wanted to do it all in one shot. Now it is incrementalism, start with the kids, make it optional,then work your way up. Just like a frog, if you drop it in boiling water it jumps out. put it in when the water is cool and slowly turn up the heat, before it knows, frog soup.

One thing you may have noticed is that peeb has difficulty reconciling one view with another from post to post. For example; he'll talk about how the government has orchestrated an attack on itself in one breath, then advocate government control of health care by lamenting over the fact that the original health care "reform" (more like complete overhaul) proposed by Hillary 10 years ago never got off the ground, then claim he's not in support of socialized health care, then asks you to read Hillary's new plan. All this while knowing that at some point another eeevil Republican, capable of orchestrating an attack on his/her own country, will have the Presidency again and your health care.

I don't get it. Funny thing is neither does peeb, but then what do you expect when he's obviously spent less than 5 minutes' thought on this issue.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One thing you may have noticed is that peeb has difficulty reconciling one view with another from post to post. For example; he'll talk about how the government has orchestrated an attack on itself in one breath, then advocate government control of health care by lamenting over the fact that the original health care "reform" (more like complete overhaul) proposed by Hillary 10 years ago never got off the ground, then claim he's not in support of socialized health care, then asks you to read Hillary's new plan. All this while knowing that at some point another eeevil Republican, capable of orchestrating an attack on his/her own country, will have the Presidency again and your health care.

I don't get it. Funny thing is neither does peeb, but then what do you expect when he's obviously spent less than 5 minutes' thought on this issue.

The average Joe can understand that this would be the first step towards a single nation health care system. It would be optional at first, then slowly but surely, it will be a complete take over. Anyone that can't see that has a feculent mind

on a side note, invoking Haliburton violates Godwin's law (the new bogey man)

[peeb]

So your opposition to the health care system that is being proposed (aside from the ridiculous personal attacks) is that it might turn into something that is not being proposed? "OMG Hillary wants to provide health care to kids without insurance! Soon she'll want to provide health care options to adults without insurance! OMG! Pretty soon we'll have a health care system that provides coverage to everyone and then... erm... that would be a good thing?"

I don't understand you. The health care system is broken. Very broken. All I hear from you is rabid opposition to anything except leaving it broken.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So your opposition to the health care system that is being proposed (aside from the ridiculous personal attacks) is that it might turn into something that is not being proposed? "OMG Hillary wants to provide health care to kids without insurance! Soon she'll want to provide health care options to adults without insurance! OMG! Pretty soon we'll have a health care system that provides coverage to everyone and then... erm... that would be a good thing?"

I don't understand you. The health care system is broken. Very broken. All I hear from you is rabid opposition to anything except leaving it broken.

it will turn into a nationalzed system.
I oppose the federal government doing it. I have no problem with the states or counties providing health care for those that cannot afford it, or work for companies that do not provide it to part time employees (like my sister). In Arizona we have Kids Care and AHCCCS. The problem is getting the word out to those who are eligible and signing them up.

[trumptman]

I find it very strange that no one in this thread has realize this is a false dilemma.

We can have both. We can have neither. It does not have to be one or the other.

The Democrats clearly support Pax America. If you want to insure there is not another Iraq and "bring our troops home." Please ask them to start in Germany, the rest of Europe, Haiti and Bosnia where we still keep and maintain troops.

Tell them to not just "redeploy" them to surrounding areas. (I always find his one humorous, what country in that area is going to want our troops stationed in their country NEAR Iraq)

Tell them to bring them home. All of them, and stop Pax Americana. Tell them to stop being the main funder and provider of force for the U.N. Tell NATO to defend itself so we can afford that nice socialized medicine they enjoy since we have brought and enforced peace on that continent for half a century.

Stop the false choices and slogans for political purposes and express a true change in policy.

Nick

[besson3c]

Yes, and stop the false choices of everybody or nobody being on government health care, and start looking around to see how these things work in other countries. When you do, you'll realize that there is plenty of room for both, and plenty of countries that provide hybrid systems.

[subego]

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I find it very strange that no one in this thread has realize this is a false dilemma.

We can have both. We can have neither. It does not have to be one or the other.

No one has pointed it out because everyone realizes it.

What you are noticing is that opinions on these subjects are polarized.

The participants don't even see this question as a true dilemma.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by trumptman 

The Democrats clearly support Pax America. If you want to insure there is not another Iraq and "bring our troops home." Please ask them to start in Germany, the rest of Europe, Haiti and Bosnia where we still keep and maintain troops.

Tell them to not just "redeploy" them to surrounding areas. (I always find his one humorous, what country in that area is going to want our troops stationed in their country NEAR Iraq)

Tell them to bring them home. All of them, and stop Pax Americana. Tell them to stop being the main funder and provider of force for the U.N. Tell NATO to defend itself so we can afford that nice socialized medicine they enjoy since we have brought and enforced peace on that continent for half a century.

Stop the false choices and slogans for political purposes and express a true change in policy.

Nick

Don't forget Japan and South Korea. Japan has benefited the most.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

it will turn into a nationalzed system.
I oppose the federal government doing it. I have no problem with the states or counties providing health care for those that cannot afford it, or work for companies that do not provide it to part time employees (like my sister). In Arizona we have Kids Care and AHCCCS. The problem is getting the word out to those who are eligible and signing them up.

That would be great if the states were doing it. Where the states fail consistently to do something that people want, then the idea of the federal government doing it gains traction. The best way to stop the federal government doing something is for the states to fix it. They haven't. They show no signs of doing it on any kind of consistent basis, the market has not done it either. That's why people want the feds to do it. It's the last resort.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Wouldn't you take better care and be more cautious if you knew you didn't have insurance?

Well, I can't say I'm jumping off buildings now because I have health insurance. I'm not sure what your point is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was making a mockery of the question posed in the thread title. Genuine questions get genuine answers, stupid questions get...

It is a genuine question, and a good one. We can spend our tax money how we like it. You choose to blow up our money in Iraq. I'd rather spend it on health care for Americans. The decisions you make about how you spend your money reflect your priorities. So, your priorities are clear.

Additionally, it is not just the original poster who set up the choice, it is Bush himself. Bush has argued against the health care bill for some of the reasons people have mentioned in this thread -- reasons I agree with. But he has also argued against it by saying simply that it is something we can't afford. And that's an argument that neither he nor you, nor anybody as fiscally irresponsible as you guys, can get away with.

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I find it very strange that no one in this thread has realize this is a false dilemma.

Budget choices are not a false dilemma at all!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

Additionally, it is not just the original poster who set up the choice, it is Bush himself. Bush has argued against the health care bill for some of the reasons people have mentioned in this thread -- reasons I agree with. But he has also argued against it by saying simply that it is something we can't afford. And that's an argument that neither he nor you, nor anybody as fiscally irresponsible as you guys, can get away with

Yeah, especially since public health is literally cheaper for a country than privatized health...

[trumptman]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one has pointed it out because everyone realizes it.

What you are noticing is that opinions on these subjects are polarized.

The participants don't even see this question as a true dilemma.

They can be polarized, but the choice is not one against the other no matter how one wants to frame it. You can have both, none, or one of each totally independent of one to the other.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Don't forget Japan and South Korea. Japan has benefited the most.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, I can't say I'm jumping off buildings now because I have health insurance. I'm not sure what your point is.

It is a genuine question, and a good one. We can spend our tax money how we like it. You choose to blow up our money in Iraq. I'd rather spend it on health care for Americans. The decisions you make about how you spend your money reflect your priorities. So, your priorities are clear.

Additionally, it is not just the original poster who set up the choice, it is Bush himself. Bush has argued against the health care bill for some of the reasons people have mentioned in this thread -- reasons I agree with. But he has also argued against it by saying simply that it is something we can't afford. And that's an argument that neither he nor you, nor anybody as fiscally irresponsible as you guys, can get away with.

Budget choices are not a false dilemma at all!

It isn't something we can afford. We can't really afford the war either. There are thousands of things we can't afford and the government is quickly bankrupting us and our currency.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, especially since public health is literally cheaper for a country than privatized health...

Any system where government is involved has costs rising faster than the rate of inflation. The latest example is housing. Look at the costs of elective procedures versus regular health care. You can have your eyes lasiked for less each year. Meanwhile getting treated for some stitches becomes a couple thousand dollar procedure via the government intervention into market forces.

This is true even for insurance. We have our current health insurance mess (where we have private coverage but know nothing about the costs) as a remnant of WWII and wage controls.

Nick

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

It is a genuine question, and a good one. We can spend our tax money how we like it. You choose to blow up our money in Iraq. I'd rather spend it on health care for Americans. The decisions you make about how you spend your money reflect your priorities. So, your priorities are clear.

You're correct, my priorities are clear. Do not place our health care in the hands of the ones that are blowing up money in Iraq.

Additionally, it is not just the original poster who set up the choice, it is Bush himself. Bush has argued against the health care bill for some of the reasons people have mentioned in this thread -- reasons I agree with. But he has also argued against it by saying simply that it is something we can't afford. And that's an argument that neither he nor you, nor anybody as fiscally irresponsible as you guys, can get away with.

So... I cannot argue aspects of our national budget because George Bush has been fiscally irresponsible??? This is a new one.

I love the "you guys" though. Proof yet again that some here are incapable of discerning right from wrong, only seeing things as right or left. At some point tie, we gotta get beyond this.

[Chongo]

This debate of expanding S-CHIP or 41 days in Iraq is actually a moot point if the ABC Radio News story is correct. The funding will come from another increase in tobacco taxes. Once again eeevil smokers will again be taxed to fund a federal program. Funny thing is in order to keep programs funded from tobacco taxes there has to be a constant supply of smokers. Someone is going to have to start smoking to replace those that die from using "Big Tobacco's" eeevil products. Where are these new smokers going to come from? I can see the poster now "Uncle Sam Needs You, to Start Smoking! Remember, its for the children!"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This debate of expanding S-CHIP or 41 days in Iraq is actually a moot point if the ABC Radio News story is correct. The funding will come from another increase in tobacco taxes. Once again eeevil smokers will again be taxed to fund a federal program. Funny thing is in order to keep programs funded from tobacco taxes there has to be a constant supply of smokers. Someone is going to have to start smoking to replace those that die from using "Big Tobacco's" eeevil products. Where are these new smokers going to come from? I can see the poster now "Uncle Sam Needs You, to Start Smoking! Remember, its for the children!"

It is ironic to me that the smoking demographic is the demographic that will pay for this. Per Census Bureau statistics; a lower income demographic, an uninsured demographic.

Worse;
- SCHIP is for children only by name. In Minnesota, nearly 90% of those enrolled were adults in 2005. Wisconsin; 66%. This will not get better with time, only worse.
- Eligibility thresholds start at 140% of poverty level, but extend as high as 200%, and in some cases 350% of poverty level. Very little has been gained by SCHIP other than shifting people from private insurance to SCHIP while those at poverty level are already eligible for coverage. This will get worse before it gets better without at least some serious consideration to SCHIP reform. In its short life, it is already getting out of hand.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by trumptman 

It isn't something we can afford. We can't really afford the war either. There are thousands of things we can't afford and the government is quickly bankrupting us and our currency.



Any system where government is involved has costs rising faster than the rate of inflation. The latest example is housing. Look at the costs of elective procedures versus regular health care. You can have your eyes lasiked for less each year. Meanwhile getting treated for some stitches becomes a couple thousand dollar procedure via the government intervention into market forces.

This is true even for insurance. We have our current health insurance mess (where we have private coverage but know nothing about the costs) as a remnant of WWII and wage controls.

Nick

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but the amount of money that a country spends annually in their taxes on public health is ridiculously small compared to what Americans pay for their private health insurance. It costs less for a nation to provide public health care coverage, according to the numbers provided by the Wikipedia.

When you take all of the billing, writing off patients that can't pay their bills, bankruptcy/welfare costs, etc. and replace it with simply billing Medicare (in the case of Canada), one can see how such a system would end up being cheaper.

We need to start asking ourselves why it is that a tylenol can cost $6 within a hospital. They are trying to earn themselves a profit from having to treat patients that can't pay their bills. Basically, we are subsidizing the costs of those that can't afford health care. A public system option is one solution that will help level out these costs which contribute to the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country.

[Chongo]

some comments on the Canadian system
Windsor Journal; Doctors Eying the U.S.: Canada Is Sick About It - New York Times
I hope things have changed in the 5 Years since this data was collected
Marginal Revolution: More on Canadian medicine
More on Canadian medicine

Median waiting time for radiation treatment for breast cancer in province of Ontario: 8 weeks

Median waiting time for angioplasty in the province of British Columbia: 12 weeks

Median waiting time for radiation treatment for prostate cancer in province of Quebec: 12 weeks

Median waiting time for cataract removal in the province of Ontario: 20 weeks.

Median waiting time for cataract removal in the province of Saskatchewan: 52 weeks.

Median waiting time for a tonsillectomy in the province of Saskatchewan: 80 weeks.

For the full story, replete with additional statistics, and also some graphs, click here.

Update: David Frum responds to some of the critics of his original piece:

c) The Canadian population is demographically different from America’s in important ways. The average age of the Canadian population is lower than that of the United States. There is less obesity in Canada, fewer premature births, fewer victims of assault and attempted homicide. Canadians also drive fewer miles per year than Americans. These differences impose costs on the United States that the Canadian system does not bear. Even under exactly identical health-care policy regimes, one would expect health-care expenditure in the United States to be significantly higher than in Canada.

d) Advocates of single payer often cite Canada’s lower expenditure on healthcare as an argument in favor of the Canadian system. Then, when confronted with the evidence of the Canadian system’s failure, they admit that America’s 14% is not all frittered away on advertising and obscene HMO profits – that it does indeed buy superior care. But if the American system is not riddled with waste that single-payer will squeeze out, then extending a single-payer system to cover the entire U.S. population will be just as hugely expensive as conservative critics fear.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're correct, my priorities are clear. Do not place our health care in the hands of the ones that are blowing up money in Iraq.

Well, you are one of the few left who supports blowing up our tax dollars to no effect in Iraq.

So... I cannot argue aspects of our national budget because George Bush has been fiscally irresponsible??? This is a new one.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't argue aspects of our national budget because you have been fiscally irresponsible. What does Bush have to do with it?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

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

Yep. Those of us who don't want to be in Iraq and don't want public healthcare.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I love the "you guys" though. Proof yet again that some here are incapable of discerning right from wrong, only seeing things as right or left. At some point tie, we gotta get beyond this.

And that is what this part of the forum is all about. Right vs Left. Not Right vs. Wrong.

That is why politic in general, esp on the net have left me a bit

I don't know why in real life I can have discussions about politics with people without the overzealous left.vs.right debate that goes on in here.

I guess thats what makes up a political zealot. They don't care right vs. wrong.

Just "I am for my side, and whatever they do, and the other side is bad whatever they do"

Funny how we didn't need a PL when Clinton was in the height of his baboonery. Of course, some of us showed self control. And just made ONE thread on it instead of 10 threads about the same anti-Bush rant that was flooding the lounge.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, you are one of the few left who supports blowing up our tax dollars to no effect in Iraq.

You wouldn't know whether there's an effect in Iraq or not. You don't seem willing to hear anything other than doom and gloom on this issue. There is no "all bad" or "all good" in the world, only in political blogs.

Originally Posted by tie

That doesn't make any sense. You can't argue aspects of our national budget because you have been fiscally irresponsible. What does Bush have to do with it?

I don't know really, you invoked his name at least three times in your last post to me. What does Bush have to do with it?

Bush has also argued against it by saying simply that it is something we can't afford. And that's an argument that neither he nor you, nor anybody as fiscally irresponsible as you guys, can get away with.

A. You said Bush, then you said "you guys". I didn't know what that meant. You said it didn't make sense. I'd ask that you please try to make sense then.
B. "you guys" is not me. This is a painfully partisan and simpleton way of discourse.
C. You don't know anything about me, particularly my financial situation.
D. Advocating a massive pull-out of troops now only to return in two years to a humanitarian nightmare, a logistical nightmare, and a more fortified enemy is not "fiscal responsibility."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

some comments on the Canadian system
Windsor Journal; Doctors Eying the U.S.: Canada Is Sick About It - New York Times
I hope things have changed in the 5 Years since this data was collected
Marginal Revolution: More on Canadian medicine
More on Canadian medicine

Median waiting time for radiation treatment for breast cancer in province of Ontario: 8 weeks

Median waiting time for angioplasty in the province of British Columbia: 12 weeks

Median waiting time for radiation treatment for prostate cancer in province of Quebec: 12 weeks

Median waiting time for cataract removal in the province of Ontario: 20 weeks.

Median waiting time for cataract removal in the province of Saskatchewan: 52 weeks.

Median waiting time for a tonsillectomy in the province of Saskatchewan: 80 weeks.

For the full story, replete with additional statistics, and also some graphs, click here.

Update: David Frum responds to some of the critics of his original piece:

c) The Canadian population is demographically different from America’s in important ways. The average age of the Canadian population is lower than that of the United States. There is less obesity in Canada, fewer premature births, fewer victims of assault and attempted homicide. Canadians also drive fewer miles per year than Americans. These differences impose costs on the United States that the Canadian system does not bear. Even under exactly identical health-care policy regimes, one would expect health-care expenditure in the United States to be significantly higher than in Canada.

d) Advocates of single payer often cite Canada’s lower expenditure on healthcare as an argument in favor of the Canadian system. Then, when confronted with the evidence of the Canadian system’s failure, they admit that America’s 14% is not all frittered away on advertising and obscene HMO profits – that it does indeed buy superior care. But if the American system is not riddled with waste that single-payer will squeeze out, then extending a single-payer system to cover the entire U.S. population will be just as hugely expensive as conservative critics fear.

Chongo: we can bo back and forth illustrating and dissecting failings of both health care systems all day... Where would that leave us?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but the amount of money that a country spends annually in their taxes on public health is ridiculously small compared to what Americans pay for their private health insurance. It costs less for a nation to provide public health care coverage.

Of course it would be cheaper. But politicians would get fewer campaign donations!

[Chongo]

full story at:FOXNews.com - Congressional Democrats Propose Cigarette Tax Hike to Pay for Children's Health Coverage - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Congressional Democrats Propose Cigarette Tax Hike to Pay for Children's Health Coverage

Sunday, September 30, 2007
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

[peeb]

'Full story' at Fox News? Unlikely. The cigarette tax is a cheap political move, for sure.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

'Full story' at Fox News? Unlikely. The cigarette tax is a cheap political move, for sure.

It is an Associated Press article

Heres the same info from CNN (Clinton News Network):House votes to expand children's health insurance program - CNN.com
Eight Democrats opposed the bill. Some, from tobacco-growing districts, object to raising the federal cigarette tax to $1 a pack, a 61-cent increase. Some Hispanic members complained that the bill would make legal immigrant children wait five years to qualify for SCHIP.

another AP site:News | Jacksonville Daily News

[osiris]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: we can bo back and forth illustrating and dissecting failings of both health care systems all day... Where would that leave us?

Certainly not in North America.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You wouldn't know whether there's an effect in Iraq or not. You don't seem willing to hear anything other than doom and gloom on this issue. There is no "all bad" or "all good" in the world, only in political blogs.

What do you base this on? Of course I'm willing to hear more than doom and gloom. Also of course, I'd like to hear it from other parties than the liars who started this war and the gullible who fell for the lies (ahem).

C. You don't know anything about me, particularly my financial situation.

I know that you consistently support policies that are hugely fiscally irresponsible. That's why I called you fiscally irresponsible. If you want to change that, then start supporting fiscally sound policies. Then in another ten years you might have regained enough credibility for me to listen to you. Of course I don't know anything about your personal financial situation. But the image you project based on the policies you support in this forum, is of a foolish spendthrift.

Therefore you don't have any credibility arguing about budget spending.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

What do you base this on? Of course I'm willing to hear more than doom and gloom. Also of course, I'd like to hear it from other parties than the liars who started this war and the gullible who fell for the lies (ahem).

Right and lets give these liars who start wars our health care, maybe some global warming funds to squander too. Let's just say I'm not convinced you think this Administration is quite as evil as you let on in your posts.

BTW; I didn't fall for anything. I merely accepted the information as provided me by the prior two Administrations and most officials from both sides of the aisle including most of the International body that threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance over 12 years and 13 resolutions. People like David Kay are only credible when they tell you there were no WMDs in Iraq, but you breezed right past the testimony about nuclear plans and WMD material sales and that if we averted this threat by invading, we "barely averted" it.

I know that you consistently support policies that are hugely fiscally irresponsible.

Such as? Of course you'll throw out subjects on which we disagree, but you're certainly not prepared to tell me how my views advocate a less fiscally responsible position. I can't wait to see how you stretch this.

That's why I called you fiscally irresponsible.

No reason at all is why you called me fiscally irresponsible? Okay, you're fiscally irresponsible because you support fiscally irresponsible policies. See how productive this is?

But the image you project based on the policies you support in this forum, is of a foolish spendthrift.

Iraq. Okay, I get it. Of course, you won't be able to tell me how much our action in Iraq would've cost the US had we initiated action next year or the year after as opposed to 2003. You can't tell me why action against Iraq wasn't necessary, you just oppose it all right or is it only contingent upon whether there's an (R) or a (D) after their name?

Therefore you don't have any credibility arguing about budget spending.

I disagree and will continue arguing about budget spending. After all, you've not given me any reason why I shouldn't.

[Chongo]

That's why I called you fiscally irresponsible.
No reason at all is why you called me fiscally irresponsible? Okay, you're fiscally irresponsible because you support fiscally irresponsible policies. See how productive this is?

No matter what programs Republicans come up with the reply from the Democrats is "it's not enough" If they propose project "X" for "the children" at $x per child, the Dems come back and say "we'll spend twice that" It turns into a contest to see who can bleed the taxpayers the most.

The problem is they act like it's their money to spend. I would rather give my money to the Salvation Army or the United Way (which I do through payroll deductions), or any private organization before the Federal government. Left to our own, we are (and were before Johnson's "Great Society" programs) more than capable of taking care of those who need and want help.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Who Gives to Charity?

Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

From a born and bred (and still) liberal
Who Really Cares; Arthur C. Brooks

Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No matter what programs Republicans come up with the reply from the Democrats is "it's not enough" If they propose project "X" for "the children" at $x per child, the Dems come back and say "we'll spend twice that" It turns into a contest to see who can bleed the taxpayers the most.

The problem is they act like it's their money to spend.

Again, I don't see where you are coming from. This thread is about, would you rather blow up a trillion dollars in Iraq or spend $60 billion on health care. The Republicans are the ones who are supporting the former, so it doesn't make any sense that you are blaming the Democrats.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

Again, I don't see where you are coming from. This thread is about, would you rather blow up a trillion dollars in Iraq or spend $60 billion on health care. The Republicans are the ones who are supporting the former, so it doesn't make any sense that you are blaming the Democrats.

It is because of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton that we are blowing up Iraqis... Don't you see?

[peeb]

I love that it's the republicans who are bleeding the taxpayer, and yet they have the gall to claim it's actually the democrats.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW; I didn't fall for anything. I merely accepted the information as provided me by the prior two Administrations and most officials from both sides of the aisle including most of the International body that threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance over 12 years and 13 resolutions. People like David Kay are only credible when they tell you there were no WMDs in Iraq, but you breezed right past the testimony about nuclear plans and WMD material sales and that if we averted this threat by invading, we "barely averted" it.

You didn't fall for it, you merely fell for it. Now this is really Clintonian! I hope you're not serious!

You can't claim to be fiscally responsible and also support a war whose cost is estimated at $1-2 trillion, and which has no benefit for the US. I know your position on the war, so you aren't fiscally responsible. Stop pretending.

No reason at all is why you called me fiscally irresponsible? Okay, you're fiscally irresponsible because you support fiscally irresponsible policies. See how productive this is?

Please read my post again. I gave my reasons.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No matter what programs Republicans come up with the reply from the Democrats is "it's not enough" If they propose project "X" for "the children" at $x per child, the Dems come back and say "we'll spend twice that" It turns into a contest to see who can bleed the taxpayers the most.

That's why I'm hoping some day that the "left wing" realizes it's possible accomplish (some of) their goals with "right wing" policy.

If the Republicans propose to give you tax credit "X" for children's health care, I want the Democrats to come back and say "we'll give you twice the tax credit".

It would turn into a contest of who could provide the best government. Imagine that.

[peeb]

How about if Republicans offered to go to war for no reason, blow a boat-load of money, and kill a load of Americans, and Democrats said "We'll do TWICE the amount of that!"? Oh, wait - the Republicans are taking the US in exactly the WRONG DIRECTION, so the Dems proposing to correct it is more like what we need. In almost every area, the best thing the US could do is reverse current republican policy, not do more of it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

Again, I don't see where you are coming from. This thread is about, would you rather blow up a trillion dollars in Iraq or spend $60 billion on health care. The Republicans are the ones who are supporting the former, so it doesn't make any sense that you are blaming the Democrats.

This because of the weakness shown by mostly Carter and Clinton. Reagan showed weakness after the truck bomb Lebanon, but learned a lesson from it, Clinton didn't

I don't see anything about providing doctors, education, or any of extra-constitutional programs Congress has enacted of the the last 70 years. I do see the defense items highlighted below. It is interesting that war was declared on the Barbary pirates operating out north Africa
(Bin Laden declared war on us)
First Barbary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]

This is why this war that is "blowing up trillions of dollars" must be fought and won. If it is not, there will be a day when this war is fought here, on American soil.
Constitution of the United States of America - Wikisource

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

How about if Republicans offered to go to war for no reason...

We already did this once. Let me know when you want to move forward.

Originally Posted by subego 

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.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You didn't fall for it, you merely fell for it. Now this is really Clintonian! I hope you're not serious!

Clintonian or whatever you'd like to call it I suppose. "Falling" for something would imply the failure to consider the credibility of the source of information. My decision to accept the information as provided me by the prior two Administrations, most officials from both sides of the aisle, and most of the International body that threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance over 12 years and 13 resolutions does not constitute being duped or "falling" for anything. I was later affirmed in my decision by people like David Kay whom you deem credible only when they tell you there were no WMDs in Iraq, failing to consider the testimony about nuclear plans and WMD material sales and that if we averted this threat by invading, we "barely averted" it.

You can't claim to be fiscally responsible and also support a war whose cost is estimated at $1-2 trillion, and which has no benefit for the US.

You can't claim to be fiscally responsible while choosing to hand money over to a deceitful, corrupt, and fiscally irresponsible government to "insure 10 million children". If the government were as corrupt and fiscally irresponsible as you claim, you wouldn't advocate handing them one solitary dime of your money. You can't reconcile this conservative view with your mates @ Starbucks or what?

Either;
A) you believe this government is corrupt, deceitful, and fiscally irresponsible and don't advocate our money being used by them for war, health care, and global warming or...
B) the government is not as corrupt, deceitful, and fiscally irresponsible as you claim.

Which is it tie?

I know your position on the war, so you aren't fiscally responsible. Stop pretending.

Stop pretending what, that the world does not always operate in a black and white, right and left way and that there are many complex issues for which you cannot engage productive, mature discourse?

You can't tell me that the war in Iraq would've been any cheaper had it been started today, next year, or the year after that tie. You can't tell me that another 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions against Iraq would be cheaper. You can't tell me that the implications of inaction would be any cheaper tie. You can't tell me any of these things. I can tell you that we've repeatedly engaged Iraq through the last 3 Presidencies and that the problem wasn't going to go away.

I can tell you with great certainty that your ideals of giving this money to the government for "insuring children" and addressing global warming instead is fiscally irresponsible tie because you've told me yourself the government is corrupt, deceitful, and fiscally irresponsible.

Please read my post again. I gave my reasons.

No thanx. You didn't give any reason(s) tie. You said policies (plural), but mentioned one policy. One that you can't even logically reconcile with the remainder of your fiscally irresponsible notions. You know, the reason(s) you've given me to give back to you?

Please read your post again, take at least 5 minutes to really think it through, and try again.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

We already did this once. Let me know when you want to move forward.

The point is, the proposal was made that Dems should offer to do what the Republicans are doing, only more so. That is so obviously rubbish, that it's hard not to caricature it. The fact that Republicans have barely done anything that is not an out-and-out attack on America and its values seems lost on you. If by 'move forward' you mean stop pointing out what a train-wreck this administration has been? It'll be a while.