Timelines for Iraq

[Judge]

The federal government isn't charged with funding health care, they are charged with the national defense.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

If the money spent for Iraq so far is "a spit in the Olympic-sized swimming pool of expenses" then lets spend that same amount of money inside the US for the citizens of the US ... you know hock two loogies in that pool of expenses. Imagine if all the money put into Iraq was used to address the Medicare or Soc Security funding or even towards a health care initiative?

Can you name a single spending bill that George Bush has signed that was for the good of the US citizens specifically? Or at least one he didn't threaten a veto on?

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Judge

The federal government isn't charged with funding health care, they are charged with the national defense.

Then why does the Feds fund SS and Medicare? If national defense is the primary thing the Feds should be funding then why is the southern border still wide open? Is taking care of our troops after they are home part of national defense? If so, why are there reports of lack of health care and mental health, homelessness? If national defense is a priority then why are our armed services stretched so thinly?

[Judge]

First you have to start with the proposition - is it true or not.

I think undeniably, anyone with a copy of the Declaration and the Constitution would have to agree.

If true, then the best short explaination for your question is that we live in an imperfect world, led by imperfect men. It does not change what is right or wrong, we simply should strive to do the best we can with what we have.


I would also argue that if you look at the history of medicine, it became problematic moreso after the gov't entered in and began instutituion of a partial socialistic system - via medicare and medicaid. And while I support the border fence, tightening controls ect.. to imply that an army is invading the country or that we are under seige in our southern border is a little extreme. This is a job for the border patrol - which should be strenthened, we don't need tanks and artillery nor can the military engage in police activities.

And finally, back to the topic, what was the timeline for defeating Japan and Germany after Pearl - I don't remember that one? Since when did a 'timeline' become the goal for our military?

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Then why does the Feds fund SS and Medicare? If national defense is the primary thing the Feds should be funding then why is the southern border still wide open? Is taking care of our troops after they are home part of national defense? If so, why are there reports of lack of health care and mental health, homelessness? If national defense is a priority then why are our armed services stretched so thinly?

[AZXD]

Skip the history lesson!!

Come visit my, or any other border state and tell me that no invasion is occurring because it is not a foreign military.

As for our military not getting involved in police actions ... I agree!!
That is why BP needs to be reinforced and supplemented with a civilian presence. The politico's will say we can only fund a given level toward the BP, and to this I say .... I'll volunteer time to defend this country, and I'm sure others would do the same.
Don't believe me .... Start a poll. But be very careful of the wording, bec ause some don't like to hear of civilians who are willing to do what the government will not.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Judge

First you have to start with the proposition - is it true or not.

I think undeniably, anyone with a copy of the Declaration and the Constitution would have to agree.

If true, then the best short explaination for your question is that we live in an imperfect world, led by imperfect men. It does not change what is right or wrong, we simply should strive to do the best we can with what we have.


I would also argue that if you look at the history of medicine, it became problematic moreso after the gov't entered in and began instutituion of a partial socialistic system - via medicare and medicaid. And while I support the border fence, tightening controls ect.. to imply that an army is invading the country or that we are under seige in our southern border is a little extreme. This is a job for the border patrol - which should be strenthened, we don't need tanks and artillery nor can the military engage in police activities.

And finally, back to the topic, what was the timeline for defeating Japan and Germany after Pearl - I don't remember that one? Since when did a 'timeline' become the goal for our military?

So would I be correct in assuming that you would support the elimination of Medicare and SS?

Who said anything about a timeline?

Judge, it's OK to take the taxes that US citizens pay and use that money for the benefit of the citizens directly. Really, it's OK.

[Judge]

Yes I would... support the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. All they've done is greatly inflate the cost of medicine and confuse the consumers/market allowing almost oligopolistic practices. But it would have to be combined with a complete overhaul of federal and state regs regarding the practice of medicine.

Who said anything about a 'timeline' - two things: 1) the title of this thread, and 2) the lib debate over iraq for the past two years. Almost every mention has included the word 'timeline' in it.

And on the third point, you see, you and I differ. The gov't by taking citizens money, doesn't actually benefit them - the citizens as a whole. It does benefit a few select and the bureaucrats who run the program. For every dollar in goods and services delivered to needy individuals, charities can do it for 10 cents. It costs the state gov't 1.04 to deliever the same dollar of goods or services.

It costs the federal government 3.12 to deliver the one dollar of goods and services. Look at Katrina for the most recent perfect example, drive thru Mississippi or Florida or Alabama and see the 1000's and 1000's of unused trailers rotting in the sun at the FEMA reserves.

I believe the individual is better able to make decisions for himself and the family than the gov't. That's where we differ.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

So would I be correct in assuming that you would support the elimination of Medicare and SS?

Who said anything about a timeline?

Judge, it's OK to take the taxes that US citizens pay and use that money for the benefit of the citizens directly. Really, it's OK.

[eric_t12]

The federal government isn't charged with funding health care, they are charged with the national defense.

yet we're expected to pay for iraqis medical care, because ... why?



...gotcha.

I believe the individual is better able to make decisions for himself and the family than the gov't.

yet we use our government to 'assist' iraq's government (at large american taxpayer expense, which according to you, could be better completed by the individual, which i agree on completely) in making decisions...



...gotcha X2.

socialism abroad is worse than socialism at home. it doesn't even put the dollars back into the country they originate from.


both are equally disgusting. i just happen to realize it.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

Yes I would... support the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. All they've done is greatly inflate the cost of medicine and confuse the consumers/market allowing almost oligopolistic practices. But it would have to be combined with a complete overhaul of federal and state regs regarding the practice of medicine.

Who said anything about a 'timeline' - two things: 1) the title of this thread, and 2) the lib debate over iraq for the past two years. Almost every mention has included the word 'timeline' in it.

And on the third point, you see, you and I differ. The gov't by taking citizens money, doesn't actually benefit them - the citizens as a whole. It does benefit a few select and the bureaucrats who run the program. For every dollar in goods and services delivered to needy individuals, charities can do it for 10 cents. It costs the state gov't 1.04 to deliever the same dollar of goods or services.

It costs the federal government 3.12 to deliver the one dollar of goods and services. Look at Katrina for the most recent perfect example, drive thru Mississippi or Florida or Alabama and see the 1000's and 1000's of unused trailers rotting in the sun at the FEMA reserves.

I believe the individual is better able to make decisions for himself and the family than the gov't. That's where we differ.

Stop stealing ideas from Ron Paul

[eric_t12]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Stop stealing ideas from Ron Paul

...unless it has to do with iraqis and their families, then its ok.




see its not theft. paul's ideas stop at our borders, the pansy.

[Judge]

we assist them the same way we assisted the germans and japs after wwii. I know that fact probably escapes you, but that's the way it is...

course we could do it like you want and just surrender to AQ. Then we'd all have peace!!

...gotcha 3x.

Originally Posted by eric_t12

yet we're expected to pay for iraqis medical care, because ... why?



...gotcha.



yet we use our government to 'assist' iraq's government (at large american taxpayer expense, which according to you, could be better completed by the individual, which i agree on completely) in making decisions...



...gotcha X2.

socialism abroad is worse than socialism at home. it doesn't even put the dollars back into the country they originate from.


both are equally disgusting. i just happen to realize it.