404 not found

Well if they cut the funding, then the President has an easy blame. They give him a timetable, then there's leniency to correct his mistakes. There are some senators that have more of an idea as to how to run the war, being as they were in the military, than the President does. Many retired generals are also in support of a pullout. With so many different sides arguing, it makes no sense to let the President do what he wants just to look like the good guy if Congress cuts the spending.

Benjichang wrote: I just had an insight about this. If it's going to take us so long to get Iraq back on its feet, as Bush keeps saying, then why was this war sold to us as being a quick victory. I can recall no one saying that we were going to be in Iraq for years, especially after "Mission Accomplished" If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Do you ever recall anyone saying 'Oh boy! This is going to be over in no time! Rebuilding Iraq is going to be a snap!'?

Dune wrote: Well if they cut the funding, then the President has an easy blame. They give him a timetable, then there's leniency to correct his mistakes. There are some senators that have more of an idea as to how to run the war, being as they were in the military, than the President does.

Is this about blame? Does blame have anything to do with the way this country is run? If congress cut the funding on the military, the check and balance would have worked the way it was intended to work, If the Democratic controlled Congress is afraid to do what they beleive they should do if Bush won't do it for them, in the face of public backlash, are they really doing the bidding of the People that supposedly elected them last year for this purpose? If they really want to do their jobs the way they were elected, they should grow the testicular fortitude that it takes to deliver on the promises that got them into office. Bush has, sticking to what he beleives is the right thing to do, regardless of the fickle nature of public opinion, driven by the urging of a biased media.

Remember peeps, indaviduals can be unique, wonderful and amazing, but the People are stupid, ignorant, easily swayed and prone to panic.

Benjichang wrote: The fact remains that it passed in both the House and Senate. If it wasn't for GW, this would be in effect.

So it sounds like the system is working as intended...?

Dune wrote: I won't argue that the system isn't working as intended. I definitely understand that. I just think maybe the executive branch has lost touch with the people.

Which may or may not be true - but we elected him, so we are stuck with him, at least until 2009.

I would rather have the occasional disconnected executive than having to deal with a direct democracy(!)

Clark Kent wrote: Dune wrote: I won't argue that the system isn't working as intended. I definitely understand that. I just think maybe the executive branch has lost touch with the people. Which may or may not be true - but we elected him, so we are stuck with him, at least until 2009. I would rather have the occasional disconnected executive than having to deal with a direct democracy(!)

I can see that, and would agree on most parts. However, disconnected over oil prices and disconnected over people's lives are two different things.

WGP guy2 wrote: Benjichang wrote: It's just dumb that this is what most of the people want, yet just because the pres. doesn't agree with it, he will veto it. It's like Bush doesn't even care about what everyone else wants. Too damn stubborn to admit he was wrong. I just wish the administration could at least acknowledge that this is a concern among many Americans and maybe compromise just a bit. Really?  If its what most people want then why can't Congress get the 2/3 vote to override the veto? (I'm not saying I disagree with what you are saying, just trying to get you to prove your point)

c4cypher wrote: Remember peeps, indaviduals can be unique, wonderful and amazing, but the People are stupid, ignorant, easily swayed and prone to panic.

Just because the Democrats won a slim majority last fall doesn't mean that they can claim their actions are the will of the People.  I kind of resent some politician justifying what he is doing because he claims 'it's what I want' ... when I don't want it.

The dems want to make everyone believe we are not doing anything  just to make the rights look bad, but what we are doing is solving a problem.  if we leave then they win and all the soliders and people that died would have died for nothing.  if we leave then we are leaving a problem we will have to solve later

At this point I can imagine the Veto coming down, the Senate Democrats blinking, looking around at each other, Anti-War groups nipping at their heels, and the words of the day would be: "What now?"

Win lose or draw Bush has a responsibilty to the next office to clean up the mess he started, if he leaves and this cluster screw is still in limbo then his validity whatever it may be should be damaged hard. I don't care if the next president is republician or democrat no one should be in charge of picking up the pieces that Bush will leave behind.  

Should god be promoting birth control?

This whole thing is a stunt anyways to make it look like the new congress is actually doing something productive. It never had a chance at getting by the President's desk. How sincere anybodys vote is for this doesnt matter since everybody knows it was doomed from the start. Its a chance for Democrats to look good and for many of them to make up for voting for this war. If they were serious about doing anything meaningful they'd have at least tried to cut a deal everybody hated equally. again, this is like them voting to build a time machine and not invade iraq in 2003.

If they're so convinced that this war is not worth the cost and isnt going to effect our security anyways, why vote to fund it? I mean they're basically saying "We'll give you this much money(biggest war funding bill....ever) to fight this war that we think is a pointless goatscrew." This isnt a brilliant piece of legislation, it's attaching funding to failure.This is something these people will actually be using to brag about come election time, saying how they did the right thing by still funding a war they were determined to end. People are actually going to vote for candidates for pissing away money.

Bunkered wrote: Dune wrote: 45 million without health coverage. "We" may not speak for you, but maybe a few others. Since when does the American Dream mean you have to have health care? The American Dream is the belief that anyone can make it big, not that everyone will. There are a lot of bigger problems around the world than a 1/6 rate of people not having health coverage.

Bigger problems than that? Really? Like what? Not covering millions of our people isn't as big as other issues?

I wish charities did help all those that need it. Unfortunately there aren't enough people with enough money to give to all the charity orginzations out there. I do think people should be responsible for their well being, but turning a blind eye to many that have absolutely no ability to help themselves is just selfish. Being selfish may work out, but I know if something happened to my family I'd be looking for help from others.

Homeless shelters and health coverage for those people aren't the same. Shelters can be an extremely helpful place to get a temporary fix.

Not having a car to drive to work and not having health insurance cannot be compared.

CarbineKid wrote: I have a solution for the health care problem. Its called getting a job with benefits, or buying your own!!

I'm sure all the toddlers without health insurance will be happy to hear that advice.  They should get right on it.

Come on Clark, don't you know better. When we work together as a society, we fail as a society.

Yup, heart surgeries and cancer treatments, among many others are completely free!!!

CarbineKid wrote: Dune wrote: Homeless shelters and health coverage for those people aren't the same. Shelters can be an extremely helpful place to get a temporary fix. Not having a car to drive to work and not having health insurance cannot be compared. Theres public transportation. Many of my firends took the bus until they could save for a car.

Still proves nothing. Not having that job to begin with keeps you from insurance. You can take the bus forever to your job, but you can't not be covered. It's too risky.

CarbineKid wrote: oh its for the children... What about their parents? Do we not hold them responsible for their own children well being?? Edited to add: Theres also walk in clinics that are free.

To a large extent, it is about the children, yes.  What happened to a culture of life?  We are going to let the kids die of pneumonia because their parents are unemployed?

I'm not that callous.

But as to the adults - as a staunch capitalist, I hate seeing an asset being wasted.  And letting a potential laborer miss hours of work for a stupid illness is wasteful.

CarbineKid wrote: Clark Kent wrote: CarbineKid wrote: oh its for the children... What about their parents? Do we not hold them responsible for their own children well being?? Edited to add: Theres also walk in clinics that are free. To a large extent, it is about the children, yes.  What happened to a culture of life?  We are going to let the kids die of pneumonia because their parents are unemployed? I'm not that callous. But as to the adults - as a staunch capitalist, I hate seeing an asset being wasted.  And letting a potential laborer miss hours of work for a stupid illness is wasteful. Clark not only are ther walk in clinics, but if you go to any hospital they have to take you in, regardless if you can afford it or not.

They don't have to perform surgery. The bill will still be sent to you. When it comes to serious care, there is no free ride.

CarbineKid wrote: Clark not only are ther walk in clinics, but if you go to any hospital they have to take you in, regardless if you can afford it or not.

But not for preventative care, and not for major surgery.  Walk-in clinics are great for getting some penicillin for the drip, but not so good for the kind of preventative care that keeps laborers laboring.

Endless studies have been done on this - people without health coverage get more sick, more frequently, because they don't get the regular care that they should.

It is wasteful.

Um, yes for major surgery? If you go to the hospital for any reason, let's say you say your chest hurts, they can't turn you away, and they can't deny you all the proper examinations, and surgery if needed. I work in the billing department for a hospital-and yes it's basically free healthcare. The bill does come to you, but there's no way to enforce payment, and if you come in again owing a million dollars, we can't turn you away. Period.

As for healthcare, I'm sorry, but it's not a perfect world. There's state medicaid programs for the young, pregnant, and poor, and medicare for the disabled. If you make too much money to qualify for either but too little to pay for hospital bills, then I really do feel sorry for you, I grew up the same way. My parents never had any wealth to speak of. My dad was a cop, my mom stayed home with the kids, life was rough at times. But it wasn't the government's place to ensure that we had health insurance-if we were sick, we went to the doctor, we worked things out. My mom had a serious cancer scare, had major surgery without insurance, we struggled for years to pay the bill. But we paid it.

My problem is a huge (and I mean alarmingly huge) percentage of people refuse to pay their bills, have no ambition, and don't care to be anything but leeches, and I have no desire to support them with tax dollars. It's sink or swim. There's plenty of programs to keep young, underprivelaged kids healthy, otherwise there's equal oppurtunity here, you are what you choose to be, it's not the government's place to carry you.

At the moment I'm about to be taking photography, and criminal justice. I want to become an officer, and try to move on to the FBI if possible. If I never move onto the FBI, I'll be underpaid as an officer, but that's my choice, it's what I want to do. If I don't have healthcare, I'll manage how I can, but that's nature.

I think everyone's dream that goes into criminal justice at one time is to move into the FBI. But I digress, and yes, total threadjack.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: mousewilliams99 wrote:  if we leave then they win and all the soliders and people that died would have died for nothing.  Who are "They"?

like answered for me they are the people attacking and killing our country men and and allies.  The ones if we dont stop them now will be a bigger and greater problem in the future

Healthcare is not the governments place, if you can find in the constitution where is says provide healthcare to all citizens, with supporting documentation of the concepts by the founding fathers I might concede.

The simple fact that it is neither the employers or the governments responsibility to provide healthcare. The employer has the obligation to look out for his bottom line and investors, the concept that employers should increase wages and insurance benefits is ridiculous.

As for government, it has the obligation to protect personal property, and liberty, not redistribute wealth so that everyone has equal benefits in a society as everyone else. If that is the case you might as well live in a socialist society. Just because people need, or shall I say would like a benefit (since there was a time before a vast majority of Americans had health insurance), does not mean that the government has the obligation to provide it, or the power, reason, or authority to deprive others of their property inorder to arrive as said end.

Moving on from the stance of the personal responsibility, property rights, governmental obligations and authority, universal healthcare is a bad system. While everyone gets health coverage, the quality of care given, compared to those previously insured decreases, waiting times for operations, treatments, and consultations can be significantly longer than they are in our current system. In addition in most universal healthcare system you are assigned a doctor, there is no method by which to receive alternative care in a timely fashion. This is of course in comparison to the Canadian healthcare system and other similar systems to the American Healthcare system. Also socialized medicine is extremely costly, and will significantly increase taxes.

While medicine is subsidized, if not provided by the governement, the motivation to develope new drugs (which is extremely costly), is then dimished. This is evident in Canada's R&D of drugs since instituting socialized medical care.

While it is sad that not all American's have health coverage, is it really the obligations of the government and thereby sucessful citizens to provide it? Shall America implement a policy that has such an economic impact, social impact, and involves the very nature of our form of government as well as economic system from Europe and Canada? Europe has a significantly higher unemployment rate, there are many restrictive laws on business (hiring/ firing practices = hired basically for life, excessive vacation time, etc), is this socialistic model the idea that should be instituted in America, following the applications of France, where street performers are subsidized by the state?

I say keep the American Medical System, and Insurance coverage privitized. While it is sad that not everyone can have coverage, that doesnt mean everyone should be provided coverage. America is a a nation, built upon the capitalistic ideal, where hard work, intelligence, and fortitude will bring sucess. This isnt always the case, but the governments obligation to the citizens is to protect their rights, and provide a nation safe from external threats, by which people may pursue that ideal. Social programs in any respect undermines this ideal, socialized medicine being one of them.

As for the war in Iraq:

1) we shouldn't be there, but now we are
2) we should leave in the near future, or lt me rephrase this, limit our involvement, perhaps, and noone has stated this, we should divide the country among the 3 rival groups.
3) I do not feel the war is unwinnable as much as I feel it is unwinnable with the current leadership (politically and militarily).
4) last I checked Congress did not formally declare war on Iraq, so its a Police Action.