So he asked for nearly $200 billion to pay for the next year in Iraq (which Rumsfeld said would cost about $100 million and then the rest would be covered by oil profits...4 years ago). Then he vetoed a bill that would add 61 cents to cigarettes to raise $35 billion over 5 years and give healthcare to millions of children.
wow. that's just evil. there's no way around it. that is just evil.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Then he vetoed a bill that would add 61 cents to cigarettes to raise $35 billion over 5 years and give healthcare to millions of children.
Its not illegal to smoke cigarettes. Taxing to control someones behavior is evil.
adding a tax to something isn't evil. 61 cents a pack to help insure kids is a good trade off. they're not banning people from smoking, they're not taxing to get them to stop, they're adding a tax to a frivilous item that can do a lot of good. and where do you think the $200 billion for Iraq is coming from? are you really ok with them spending that much to kill people but then not insuring kids?
It doesn't help kids or stop people from smoking. Its just another "feel good" law that does nothing but make people poorer. If someone decided to quit smoking they will quit smoking by their own choice, not the governments.
The lie about sin taxes are that they are supposed to stop people from doing "bad" things and help the poor get medical help or some such BS. If the idea is to stop the bad behavior, where will the tax money come from?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
It doesn't help kids or stop people from smoking. Its just another "feel good" law that does nothing but make people poorer. If someone decided to quit smoking they will quit smoking by their own choice, not the governments.
it has nothing to do with smoking, it's a means to finding money to give children healthcare.
Quote:
The lie about sin taxes are that they are supposed to stop people from doing "bad" things and help the poor get medical help or some such BS. If the idea is to stop the bad behavior, where will the tax money come from?
again, cigarettes aren't the point. it's a small tax on a frivilous item that gives a very needed service to children. those children will grow up healthier and the country is better off for it. also, contrast it with bush asking for 5 times as much in 1/5 the time to fund a war that he sold on not being a burden to the taxpayer.
Part of the issue here is that Ray is imposing his own sense of values on the rest of us.
Ray thinks that socialized medicine is a good idea, despite a certain amount of evidence to the contrary. Fair enough.
But rather than accept that there are valid reasons to oppose government control of health decisions, Ray has to assume that anyone disagrees must be evil.
The military issue is the same thing. Ray is against the war. Fair enough.
Again, however, Ray assumes that those who might see the conflict as necessary must be evil.
Personally, there's no way anyone could convince me this war is necessary and since it's not necessary there's a point to made for Bush being evil since he's callously sent so many to die. Or, he's just a dumbass.
A 61 cent tax on cigarettes? It certainly does sound like a good idea to me. If for nothing else to add an incentive for people to stop smoking.
The problem with "free choice" is that people who wants to quit, say, smoking are not doing it, they are not taking that choice, simply because they lack the right incentive. We all know it's bad for us, but that's not enough of an incentive. If you hit people where it hurts, their economy, they might seriously consider taking the choice they've wanted to take for a long time.
Oh, and G-mans statement about there being adequate evidence that socialised medicine doesn't work is all well and good, seeing as how he conveniently ignores the ample evidence out there tha points out that it does work.
The problem with "free choice" is that people who wants to quit, say, smoking are not doing it, they are not taking that choice, simply because they lack the right incentive.
They don't quit because they don't want to quit. Is that really that hard to understand?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Hmm, maybe that's a bit too hard for you to understand. Let me give you another example.
Organ donation. We have here in Denmark a shortage on organs because there aren't enough donors. Now, in your reasoning it is because people simply don't want to donate their organs. Not true. People do indeed want to donate their organs when they die. But even though they have the choice to become an organ donor they don't make that choice, why? I don't know, really, but it's a statistical fact nonetheless.
In sweden, if I'm not much mistaken, you're automatically signed up as an organ donor and you have to choose to not be a donor.
Now, another reason for people not quitting the smokes might be because they find it too hard, y'know, cigarettes being more addictive than heroin and all. An economic incentive might make a bit easier for these poor addicted souls.
You should be able to relate, what with being addicted to WoW
Part of the issue here is that Ray is imposing his own sense of values on the rest of us.
Ray thinks that socialized medicine is a good idea, despite a certain amount of evidence to the contrary. Fair enough.
But rather than accept that there are valid reasons to oppose government control of health decisions, Ray has to assume that anyone disagrees must be evil.
The military issue is the same thing. Ray is against the war. Fair enough.
Again, however, Ray assumes that those who might see the conflict as necessary must be evil.
here's how i see it: healthcare for kids good. veto prevents healthcare is bad. man who vetoes then asks for 5 times as much money in 1/5 the time to fund a war that is failing. for those of you against big government and taxes, where do you think $200 billion is coming from?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" -Matthew 25:41-45
The child care program would help families making up to $80,000 a year, who not only can afford health insurance, but already have health insurance. So if this bill passed, all these upper-income families would cancel their private insurance policies, and just take advantage of government freebies.
What would happen if Bush successfully vetoes this bill, is it would come back and the Republicans would change it from an 80,000-dollar-cap to a 60,000 dollar one (i.e., limiting it to families who really need the benefits).
This is just another political manipulation to emotionally charge the debate on a false issue.
I was especially repulsed by the photo-op by Nancy Pelosi, praying with children in front of the cameras for Bush to change his mind. The party opposed to prayer in schools, the party of abortion, the party of assisted suicide, the party of removing the Ten Commandments from our courthouses... praying for our President. What irony. What hypocrisy.
I think this is just a case of Democrats once again falsely demonizing Republicans, for something that is reasonable and logical.
The child care program would help families making up to $80,000 a year, who not only can afford health insurance, but already have health insurance. So if this bill passed, all these upper-income families would cancel their private insurance policies, and just take advantage of government freebies.
What would happen if Bush successfully vetoes this bill, is it would come back and the Republicans would change it from an 80,000-dollar-cap to a 60,000 dollar one (i.e., limiting it to families who really need the benefits).
This is just another political manipulation to emotionally charge the debate on a false issue.
I was especially repulsed by the photo-op by Nancy Pelosi, praying with children in front of the cameras for Bush to change his mind. The party opposed to prayer in schools, the party of abortion, the party of assisted suicide, the party of removing the Ten Commandments from our courthouses... praying for our President. What irony. What hypocrisy.
i've noticed with you it's always "bush good, democrats bad." followed by a long list of things you don't like. this isn't a thread about abortion or the ten commandments, and i don't think either party really likes to touch the assisted suicide argument. and if you're talking photo-ops is it any different than mission accomplished on a battleship or bush...wait for it...posing with a bunch of kids last year when he vetoed the stem cell bill?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
i've noticed with you it's always "bush good, democrats bad." followed by a long list of things you don't like. this isn't a thread about abortion or the ten commandments, and i don't think either party really likes to touch the assisted suicide argument. and if you're talking photo-ops is it any different than mission accomplished on a battleship or bush...wait for it...posing with a bunch of kids last year when he vetoed the stem cell bill?
That's yet another completely false sweeping generalization of yours, Ray.
Several topics (and there are many more) where I've voiced criticism of Bush and other Republicans:
A 61 cent tax on cigarettes? It certainly does sound like a good idea to me. If for nothing else to add an incentive for people to stop smoking.
So....let's say that plan actually works and it gets people to stop smoking.
If that happens, the program funded by smoking has lost it's funding, hasn't it?
It's very foolish, or disingenuous, to fund a program with an activity you are trying to eliminate or curtail.
yeah, because all the other taxes put on cigarettes over the years has stopped smoking and bankrupted the system. and no one is really trying to curtail smoking. smoking is a very frivilous thing that causes many health problems. it makes sense that cigarettes be taxed to help pay for healthcare when you figure the sheer number of people who end up needing healthcare because they smoked.
So you're admitting the plan is disingenous. Okay. Thanks.
no, i'm admitting that you're wrong as usual. this isn't about smoking or detering smoking. it's about healthcare for kids and putting a small tax on something that's rather frivilous. they could tax liquor, porn, anything like that and it'd be good if it goes towards healthcare for children. what i notice is that no one on the right is addressing that bush vetoed 35 billion over 5 years while asking for nearly 200 billion for the next year. where does that money come from? and is funding a failing war that costs lives really as important as giving children healthcare?
A 61 cent tax on cigarettes? It certainly does sound like a good idea to me. If for nothing else to add an incentive for people to stop smoking.
So....let's say that plan actually works and it gets people to stop smoking.
If that happens, the program funded by smoking has lost it's funding, hasn't it?
It's very foolish, or disingenuous, to fund a program with an activity you are trying to eliminate or curtail.
well, if it does manage to make people stop smoking and the Tax on cigarettes then become useless I'm sure there are resources spent on treating those who have gotten sick from smoking that will be freed and ready to be spent on other things, such as health care for kids.
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" -Matthew 25:41-45
You know, we could argue about the context of these passages all day, but it wouldn't get us far. Suffice it to say that I am still convinced from all my studies that the primary focus of Christ's teachings regarding compassion still lies in the choices we make as individual human beings concerning other individual human beings. The only even quasi-political entities Jesus ever addressed with commands or condemnation were the Pharisees with their stifling 'supplementary' codes of morality and the Sadducees with their stagnant Temple-centric religious and social heirarchy.
Again, making looking after those who can't look after themselves the government's job, rather than yours and mine and every other individual's moral responsibility, only accomplishes locking the disadvantaged into an inescapable and fatalistic cycle of dependency on the hand that feeds them. I've seen it. It may be well and good for some to sit back and cut a check and feel confident that the powers that be will spend said check providing medical care for underprivileged children rather than Bridges to Nowhere™. But I don't like the idea of faceless bureaucrats determining what's best for the well-being of citizens they'd never go out of their way to meet off the campaign trail. And I ESPECIALLY don't like the precedent set by making anyone dependent on the government for any facet of their existence.
I have no doubt that you genuinely care about the underprivileged, dude. But so do I. And I think there are vastly superior ways to take care of those who can't take care of themselves than "empowering" them into dependency on government cheese. I hope now we understand each other at least a little better.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
what i notice is that no one on the right is addressing that bush vetoed 35 billion over 5 years while asking for nearly 200 billion for the next year.
All that really suggests is that his priorities differ from yours.
Quote:
where does that money come from?
My pants.
Quote:
and is funding a failing war that costs lives really as important as giving children healthcare?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
what i notice is that no one on the right is addressing that bush vetoed 35 billion over 5 years while asking for nearly 200 billion for the next year. where does that money come from? and is funding a failing war that costs lives really as important as giving children healthcare?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
what i notice is that no one on the right is addressing that bush vetoed 35 billion over 5 years while asking for nearly 200 billion for the next year.
All that really suggests is that his priorities differ from yours.
so your whole point is that he values war over healthcare? wow.
Quote:
Quote:
where does that money come from?
My pants.
...takes one to know one.
Quote:
Quote:
and is funding a failing war that costs lives really as important as giving children healthcare?
Rhetorical horseshit.
no, it's a question of priorities. what matters to bush? from his actions we can infer being stubborn on Iraq despite it failing every one of his promises and hopes is more important than insuring kids. even if you think their parents can pay for it, it's still about giving insurance to kids.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
no, it's a question of priorities. what matters to bush? from his actions we can infer being stubborn on Iraq despite it failing every one of his promises and hopes is more important than insuring kids. even if you think their parents can pay for it, it's still about giving insurance to kids.
Is it the government's job to give people of any age insurance? Who's supposed to provide the parents' insurance? Employers. They're not? Find another employer. If the federal government wants to be an insurance company, they can sell health coverage at a reduced rate and try and compete with all the other providers out there. Your opinion on the war is immaterial.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
no, it's a question of priorities. what matters to bush? from his actions we can infer being stubborn on Iraq despite it failing every one of his promises and hopes is more important than insuring kids. even if you think their parents can pay for it, it's still about giving insurance to kids.
Is it the government's job to give people of any age insurance? Who's supposed to provide the parents' insurance? Employers. They're not? Find another employer. If the federal government wants to be an insurance company, they can sell health coverage at a reduced rate and try and compete with all the other providers out there. Your opinion on the war is immaterial.
the federal government already is given plenty of responsibilities that you don't seem to have a problem with. why not provide health care? where is the harm? it works in other countries and quite frankly since the government decides what the safe levels for pollution and what food and drugs are safe maybe they should also provide doctors for the people who get sick. it would probably make them set safer standards for things and in the end it'll lead to healthier americans instead of the grossly unhealthy country we live in today. we're supposed to be a superpower, the modern rome, why not have the government provide healthcare?
I have to ask, Ray, why would you want the same government who, according to you, has instigated a false war, killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, fumbled relief efforts during Katrina, trampled civil liberties, created a bad economy, has filled itself with lies and corruption, and is 'evil' to have the power to decide if little Sally Sue can have her chemo?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I have to ask, Ray, why would you want the same government who, according to you, has instigated a false war, killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, fumbled relief efforts during Katrina, trampled civil liberties, created a bad economy, has filled itself with lies and corruption, and is 'evil' to have the power to decide if little Sally Sue can have her chemo?
No, it's a perfectly legitimate question. Why do you think the same people behind the Post Office, the IRS and the office of Homeland Security are suddently going to become competent in this one area?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
I have to ask, Ray, why would you want the same government who, according to you, has instigated a false war, killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, fumbled relief efforts during Katrina, trampled civil liberties, created a bad economy, has filled itself with lies and corruption, and is 'evil' to have the power to decide if little Sally Sue can have her chemo?
that's an idiotic and loaded question.
No. It's a completely valid question that you just don't want to answer. You already pre-supposed that Sammitch approves of some government programs yet did not consider that he also disapproves of others when you asked him why the government shouldn't control health care. Why can't I put your own disapproval of how the government has acted when asking you the same question? The fact is that you're willing to give more power to a government that you've claimed is too greedy for it and misuses the power that they already has. You can either explain why you feel the government can handle this responsibility, or you maintain your non-responsive posts that only deflect away from the issue instead of actually trying to discuss it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
I have to ask, Ray, why would you want the same government who, according to you, has instigated a false war, killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, fumbled relief efforts during Katrina, trampled civil liberties, created a bad economy, has filled itself with lies and corruption, and is 'evil' to have the power to decide if little Sally Sue can have her chemo?
that's an idiotic and loaded question.
No. It's a completely valid question that you just don't want to answer. You already pre-supposed that Sammitch approves of some government programs yet did not consider that he also disapproves of others when you asked him why the government shouldn't control health care. Why can't I put your own disapproval of how the government has acted when asking you the same question? The fact is that you're willing to give more power to a government that you've claimed is too greedy for it and misuses the power that they already has. You can either explain why you feel the government can handle this responsibility, or you maintain your non-responsive posts that only deflect away from the issue instead of actually trying to discuss it.
i think that we should always aim for a good working government that helps the people. just because we have to suffer through the worst president ever currently doesn't mean we should just accept that the government will always be fucked up and give up. the government already looks out for our health by monitoring food, drugs, pollution and even police and fire and the FBI are all meant to protect lives. what exactly is the problem with them paying for healthcare as well? that way we all have health care. and if done right (which we should aim for) then it wouldn't be run like g-man suggests. it wouldn't measure whether or not to pay for treatment based on cost, but on medical opinion. because the government wouldn't run it like a business needing to make a profit like private insurance companies do.
but the point of this thread is that george bush is asking for 200 billion for the next year of war while denying 35 billion over 5 years that would help kids be healthy.
