Edwards: raise taxes for healthcare

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Woohoo more tax and spend liberalism.

Can you kindly explain how tax & spend is any worse than borrow and spend? Come on boy, think! What's better? Raising your income so you can afford new shiny things? Or putting all of those shiny things on your credit cards? Think ... what's more responsible?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, yeah, but those are the major problems with him -- making him quite bad. You can use that on pretty much any president. Hell, you can use that exact phrase with LBJ (who, when you think about it, is freakishly close to Bush in overall policies)

Reality check.... Like Bush with Iraq, Johnson lied to get us into Vietnam, but he's also the one who promoted the Great Society.

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs proposed or enacted in the United States on the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969). Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and of racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin Roosevelt, but differed sharply in types of programs. Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy's New Frontier. Johnson's success depended on his own remarkable skills at persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in 1964 that brought in many new liberals. Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society, but Richard Nixon continued many of the spending programs. Ronald Reagan ended some of them.

Bush can only wish he could propose, let alone accomplish something as positive in his administration to offset his dismal legacy of lies, death, destruction and treason.

 

[pauldovi]

Originally posted by: StrkWell, yeah, but those are the major problems with him -- making him quite bad. You can use that on pretty much any president. Hell, you can use that exact phrase with LBJ (who, when you think about it, is freakishly close to Bush in overall policies)

How is President Bush at all light LBJ? LBJ was a horrible micro-manager. President Bush is far from it.

Everyone here who is complaining about this war and the poor soldiers in it. Guess what, the military's approval rating of President Bush is very high. And the war is not illegal, nor is it covered in lies. It was a poor decision to go to Iraq and the post war has be miss-managed. However guess what, we are there! And we aren't leaving anytime soon. So land in reality and think about solutions.

Any for all those people whining about Halliburton... Name another company that does what Halliburton does. After that, research Halliburton's profits in Iraq. Less than 1.5%

 

[LegendKiller]

Lets look at this logically.


Bush cuts taxes and enters into a stupid war, resulting in hundreds of billions in wasted money and more than 3 trillion in additional debt. Where does this money get spent? In Iraq rebuilding a country that hates us, on bombs that get us nowhere, and giving money to contractors who make way too much.

The end result is we get nothing for our money. Yet idiots keep saying that we need to keep spending money. For what?

On the other hand, we can spend money on keeping this country healthy and improving our society, yet you people can't stand that idea?

Where the heck do you think Iraq money is going? Ohh wait, to protect us from our boogeymen who killed only 3,000 people? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

You are so willing to drive this country into debt for NO GOOD REASON other than you are cowardly idiots but you won't even help poor people in your own country live better lives.

"ProfJohn", you are a shallow and short-sighted person who has almost no logical capabilities.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: pauldovi
Everyone here who is complaining about this war and the poor soldiers in it. Guess what, the military's approval rating of President Bush is very high.

Guess what -- This Military Times Poll shows you're blowing smoke.

Published:
Dec. 29, 2006

Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush?s course in Iraq

By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor

The American military ? once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war ? has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president?s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war ? in 2004 ? 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president?s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush?s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president?s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year?s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today ? 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
.
.
(story continues)

Sonny boy, your reality check just bounced. :roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

That's an excellent point LegendKiller, 1 Trillion US$ (the rough cost of our adventure in Iraq) would have stimulated the economy just the same if it were spent on improving the lives of average Americans rather than an unjust war abroad. That money still flows into our economy just the same and we don't have to lose sleep at night knowing that we've completely destabilized a major section of the Middle East region. Not to mention all of the unnecessary deaths -- both our own and the Iraqis. It's hard to believe some people would choose funding this war over helping our own people.

 

[conjur]

Let's see...Bush wants a record $622 billion for the Pentagon (almost 25% higher than last year) for the next fiscal year and wants 10% cuts for everything else.

The beneficiaries of that $622 billion will largely be the major defense contractors (good buds of Buscho and the DICK). Oh, and probably tens of thousands recipients of the wrong ends of bullets and bombs.

The beneficiaries of a $500 billion healthcare program would number in the tens of millions and provide for a healthier nation that would be more productive for corporate America, too.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? Sometimes I think I might be less critical of it if we actually went in for the betterment of America-- even raping and pillaging their oil for American citizens would give at least SOME justification.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's an excellent point LegendKiller, 1 Trillion US$ (the rough cost of our adventure in Iraq) would have stimulated the economy just the same if it were spent on improving the lives of average Americans rather than an unjust war abroad. That money still flows into our economy just the same and we don't have to lose sleep at night knowing that we've completely destabilized a major section of the Middle East region. Not to mention all of the unnecessary deaths -- both our own and the Iraqis. It's hard to believe some people would choose funding this war over helping our own people.

I guess people would rather piss away money in a place thousands of miles away than give some poor family medical treatments they need to stay alive and healthy to contribute to our economy here.

But I guess it's whatever makes them be able to sleep at night. These same morons are so scared of a boogeyman that they can't sleep, but they can sleep with the knowledge that their decisions kill thousands in this country and allow millions more to go without essential health care.

I am not a particularly strong supporter of uber-socialized medicine. Yet, I cannot deny the trade-off that many people are willing to make in order to make themselves *feel* (not actually be) safer.

You really have to wonder how these people sleep at night knowing their actions and support have cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars in wasted debt/taxes, and yet more thousands of lives here because the opportunity cost of treating their fellow Americans.

I have said many times that it's not about whether we should or should not raise taxes, it's about how you allocate your scarce and finite resource. These idiots are allocating poorly and making the whole world pay for it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? Sometimes I think I might be less critical of it if we actually went in for the betterment of America-- even raping and pillaging their oil for American citizens would give at least SOME justification.

We have allowed a few pussified "Americans" their "security". That's about it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? Sometimes I think I might be less critical of it if we actually went in for the betterment of America-- even raping and pillaging their oil for American citizens would give at least SOME justification.

The oil has been secured.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? Sometimes I think I might be less critical of it if we actually went in for the betterment of America-- even raping and pillaging their oil for American citizens would give at least SOME justification.

The oil has been secured.

So secured that its twice as expensive for a gallon of gas now than before the war. 🙁

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? ...

Hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton ond other Bush patrons in the defense industry. A major erosion of Americans' civil liberties. A distraction from Bush's failure to secure Afghanistan, find OBL, and increase America's security.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? Sometimes I think I might be less critical of it if we actually went in for the betterment of America-- even raping and pillaging their oil for American citizens would give at least SOME justification.

The oil has been secured.

So secured that its twice as expensive for a gallon of gas now than before the war. 🙁

Record profits because Saddam isn't getting to keep the $900 million in extra oil royalties now that Haliburton has the oil there now.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Canada has a public system and my company still gives me healthcare coverage over and above the public system.

That shouldn't be legal. Most democrats here, are fighting to bring a single payer system to the U.S, which would outlaw private insurance companies.

 

[pauldovi]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? ...

Hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton ond other Bush patrons in the defense industry. A major erosion of Americans' civil liberties. A distraction from Bush's failure to secure Afghanistan, find OBL, and increase America's security.

I will reiterate. Halliburton has made less than 1.5% profit in Iraq. That is less money then what they make doing other projects by a long shot. Halliburton has lost out on quite a bit of money they could have made doing other projects.


I will also note this. It has been nearly 2000 days since a terrorist attack in the United States. Did Clinton ever manage such a feat?

 

[db]

Wouldn't it be a better use of our money to start a war in Iran? That's what our commander in chief wants, so it must be the right thing to do, if you're a real American.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Hey ProfJohn, where does he say that he'll solely use tax increases to pay for the healthcare?

I think ending the war in Iraq will save us well over 100billion a year by itself.

I'm still awaiting your answer. Maybe you've done the smart thing and withdrawn from this thread like we should in Iraq.

 

[db]

"tax and spend liberalism" -- where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, a mindless mantra repeated by dittoheads.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: pauldovi

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? ...

Hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton ond other Bush patrons in the defense industry. A major erosion of Americans' civil liberties. A distraction from Bush's failure to secure Afghanistan, find OBL, and increase America's security.

I will reiterate. Halliburton has made less than 1.5% profit in Iraq. That is less money then what they make doing other projects by a long shot. Halliburton has lost out on quite a bit of money they could have made doing other projects.

Care to back that up with links to a credible source? Be sure to include all the profit Halliburton makes by contracting Iraq-related services and goods from its own subsidiaries.

I will also note this. It has been nearly 2000 days since a terrorist attack in the United States. Did Clinton ever manage such a feat?

Yawn. Yes he did, in fact, almost 2,100 days from the Oklahoma City bombing (4/19/95) until he left office in 2001. More to the point, however, your premise is a pointless diversion. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda have proven themselves very patient. The only reason they haven't struck here again is they haven't chosen to do so. It's certainly not due to Bush, who has increased our risk of terrorism according to the consensus of his own intel agencies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: db
"tax and spend liberalism" -- where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, a mindless mantra repeated by dittoheads.

Hey, it wins elections.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: pauldovi

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Someone wanna explain what we've gotten out of Iraq so far? ...

Hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton ond other Bush patrons in the defense industry. A major erosion of Americans' civil liberties. A distraction from Bush's failure to secure Afghanistan, find OBL, and increase America's security.

I will reiterate. Halliburton has made less than 1.5% profit in Iraq. That is less money then what they make doing other projects by a long shot. Halliburton has lost out on quite a bit of money they could have made doing other projects.

I will also note this. It has been nearly 2000 days since a terrorist attack in the United States. Did Clinton ever manage such a feat?

How much are you getting paid by Haliburton?

 

[dyna]

I'm not a big fan of war or taxes. But Iraq has been a problem child since the invasion of Kuwait. Our country as a lot to lose because of our infrastructure. The 9/11 attacks we were reactive and lost lives/building/1trillion in the economy. Iraq I see it as pro-active. We are preventing the next big disaster. Either by stopping Saddam or showing by example what we will do if you mess with the US. Being pro-active has a huge disadvantage and that you never know the "What ifs?" Did we save a couple of million lives or a couple of trillion dollars by doing this? Who knows?

The thing about cost of wars vs the host of healthcare is that healthcare always GROWS. A war is a one time charge. Do you see us still arguing about WWII and Vietnam costs?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dyna
I'm not a big fan of war or taxes. But Iraq has been a problem child since the invasion of Kuwait. Our country as a lot to lose because of our infrastructure. The 9/11 attacks we were reactive and lost lives/building/1trillion in the economy.

Iraq I see it as pro-active. We are preventing the next big disaster. Either by stopping Saddam or showing by example what we will do if you mess with the US.

Being pro-active has a huge disadvantage and that you never know the "What ifs?" Did we save a couple of million lives or a couple of trillion dollars by doing this? Who knows?

The thing about cost of wars vs the host of healthcare is that healthcare always GROWS. A war is a one time charge. Do you see us still arguing about WWII and Vietnam costs?

Who are you Mrs Rove?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dyna
I'm not a big fan of war or taxes. But Iraq has been a problem child since the invasion of Kuwait. Our country as a lot to lose because of our infrastructure. The 9/11 attacks we were reactive and lost lives/building/1trillion in the economy.

Iraq I see it as pro-active. We are preventing the next big disaster. Either by stopping Saddam or showing by example what we will do if you mess with the US.

Being pro-active has a huge disadvantage and that you never know the "What ifs?" Did we save a couple of million lives or a couple of trillion dollars by doing this? Who knows?

The thing about cost of wars vs the host of healthcare is that healthcare always GROWS. A war is a one time charge. Do you see us still arguing about WWII and Vietnam costs?

Who are you Mrs Rove?

I see it as that was what the plan was, but instead we did stir up a hornets nest. My point is that the long term effects of war don't effect the country financially as much as things like healthcare. War isn't a recurring cost.

Had the war in Iraq met all goals, long term we could have saved millions of lives/trillions of dollars. Sometimes wars pay themselves off.