normiss 851 #1 October 23, 2007 Billions Per Week! This is getting criminal from my perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #2 October 23, 2007 "Please, Sir, I want some more"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #3 October 23, 2007 "America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," Bush said" Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #4 October 23, 2007 I wouldn't equate the two myself in my own mind, but I feel government spending in all areas is completely out of control. I don't feel that socializing health care in any form would be a solution to that - it would exacerbate the problem. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #5 October 23, 2007 who mentioned socialized healthcare? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #6 October 23, 2007 Its just tax money. Easily made back by giving people tax cuts..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #7 October 23, 2007 Do you really think this is an "either military spending or healthcare" situation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 October 23, 2007 QuoteDo you really think this is an "either military spending or healthcare" situation? of course it is, no one is willing to even TRY to discuss each on their own merits - intellectually lazy I'd like to cut military spending and then,... nope, not spend it on something else, but just give it back or pay down the debt, or something like that politicians have "a million ideas" that all cost taxes to implement - no one has ideas that save money ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #9 October 23, 2007 I realize the government handles accounting much different than most. But when the childcare plan was nixed at only $35 billion based on a cigarette tax increase that had been negotiated by both parties to where the bill was vs. a $42 billion request for funding an already exceeding $600 billion effort that has misplaced almost $2 billion...of which another $2 billion or so is disposable in "building and training costs"????? apparently they don't separate spending very well either!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 October 23, 2007 Quotewho mentioned socialized healthcare? The bill that Bush VETOED did. See, under current law, families qualify for health care through Medicaid as long as their income does not exceed about $20k. However, plenty of families with incomes above the federal poverty level cannot afford insurance premiums. That's where the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) comes in. Created by Congress in 1997, SCHIP picks up where Medicaid falls short, and allows children to receive federal health insurance coverage as long as their family income does not exceed $40,000 A loophole in the law, however, has resulted in 12 states having more ADULT enrollees under SCHIP than children - adults with incomes of up to $40k. Thus, the rules allowed money intended for children to be redirected to able-bodied adults making $40k per year. The legislation that Bush vetoed would extend this benefit to families making $62k per year - or in some cases $82k per year. Oh, yeah, and the loophole that allows adults to be in it was not closed. So, imagine an adult making $60k per year with one kid getting assistance with health care for him and his kid - and his wife. In what kid onf system is a benefit like that extended to people with incomes approaching six figures? Yep. Socialism. This vetoed legislation was not "for the children." It was GIANT leap forward to establishing socialized medicine - to put a very large portion of the population on the government rolls for healthcare - up to people making $82k per year. Children AND adults. Only in the political sector can a veto of a bill that seeks to give a lot of stuff to a lot of people that they didn't have before be called taking away benefits from children. They've got what they had before. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 October 23, 2007 Quoteapparently they don't separate spending very well either!!! I don't want them "reprioritizing" the spending line items with the net result that they increase taxes - just on different projects. I want them "eliminating" line items such that the net effect is either: lower taxes or; reduce debt. If the war is bad, delete it. It has nothing to do with whether ratcheting efforts to achieve socialized health care is either good to do or not. the either/or argument just perpetuates the status quo by dressing fiscal irresponsibility in prettier costumes. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #12 October 23, 2007 umm..yea...$40 k for an inner city family is sooooo far above the poverty level and provide them the means to purchase healthcare that already costs them at least a few hundre a month...if they have it at all. So spending billions to continue killing people makes more sense? I still don't get it. If we can afford to throw away over $2 billion a week that we can't fully account for...why is a few other billion so wrong? And given that you so disagree with handouts for those that you consider "wealthy" ... just you wait to see the government assistance for the Cali wildfires! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 October 23, 2007 Quote$40 k for an inner city family is sooooo far above the poverty level and provide them the means to purchase healthcare that already costs them at least a few hundre a month Which is what the Bush veto does. It keeps it going. It just doesn't extend it for families making 60, 70, 80k per year. QuoteIf we can afford to throw away over $2 billion a week that we can't fully account for...why is a few other billion so wrong? Are you saying that, "If two wrong don't make a right then try three?" Quotejust you wait to see the government assistance for the Cali wildfires! Is there anyone you think should be exempted? Like some multimillionaire in Malibu who just finished rebuilding their house that burned down in 2004? Should you put forth your precious bucks to help them out? I'd find that shocking to the conscience. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #14 October 23, 2007 No, THIS is why the children don't get healthcare: Irresponsible parents. The end.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #15 October 23, 2007 Quote No, THIS is why the children don't get healthcare: Irresponsible parents. The end. Yeah. How dare someone choose to keep a roof over the kid's head and food in the kid's stomach instead of having medical insurance for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #16 October 23, 2007 QuoteQuote No, THIS is why the children don't get healthcare: Irresponsible parents. The end. Yeah. How dare someone choose to keep a roof over the kid's head and food in the kid's stomach instead of having medical insurance for them. Healthcare does not equal medical insurance.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #17 October 23, 2007 I'd find that shocking to the conscience*** Geez, you are a lawyer, I've had that sentence used against me.............. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #18 October 24, 2007 those multi millionares have chosen to live on a mountainside that mudslides one part of the year so it can burn down the other part of the year... same sympathy the Californians give us Floridians for choosing to live in a hurricane alley. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #19 October 24, 2007 But please rebuild Barbara Streisands house again, and again, and again, and again.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #20 October 24, 2007 you know it's the same in my mind. we have our share of rich freaks too!we forfeit insurance payouts unless you have flood insurance - most people don't...and a lot of companies have stopped insuring in Florida totally. they should require firestorm and mudslide insurance in parts of Cali for obvious reasons as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
btvr 0 #21 October 24, 2007 Wouldn't a few Nukes be cheaper and easier? Just kidding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 October 24, 2007 Actually, most of us felt bad about the fate of Floridians during that time. We live in earthquake territory here. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #23 October 24, 2007 Yep. It seems like wherever you go, you're either in Hurricane country, Earthquake Country, Tornado Country, or Wildfire Country... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #24 October 24, 2007 Quote Billions Per Week! This is getting criminal from my perspective. Apples and oranges.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #25 October 24, 2007 Agreed....and I give to the Red Cross for all sorts of natural disasters. THOSE suck...but they aren't paid for with cigarrette taxes either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
