Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

To all who lost their lives from terrorism, rest and respect

Elliot

As I witnessed the IRA bombing of Hyde Park in 1982, I am somewhat familar with the effects that terrorism has. I was on the other side of the park with my Dad, horror films have never been the same since

I think here though you are trying to persuade an argument that was based on the number of people who died in a single attack

If it wasnt for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq etc

However, having lived with terrorism what seems all my life, do not think that the chances of you being bombed again have gone

The reason why it is particular effective is any idiot can do it, with very little assistance, but then you know that from your israeli experience

What you have to do is learn from each other of why there is so much hatred between the two sides

This involves talking, and I guarantee at some point talking will happen in Afgahanistan, and all its regions, because we cannot let this go and needs to be finished and not left to stir up again in 5 years

But this moves the subject away from the question

And we both know where we stand on this issue, im right your wrong :D

---

Phlanx,

Your prior post quoted Churchill and stated that we should look at the RESULT of our strategy, not just the strategy itself. I was taking your advice.

BEFORE 9/11 our "strategy" was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The RESULT of that strategy was more attacks... roughly 1 per year over a multiple-decade period.

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.

Given the change in strategy since 9/11 and the result of that change, I would argue that the strategy and the result are both favorable. Thus Churchill's advice is satisfied.

That was my only point.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

I wonder why you don't ask the same question when it comes to your wars.

excon

---

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.

---

Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

It's kind of the way Alice would look at it after she went through the looking glass. Silly Republicans.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).

---

Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

But, of course, it AIN'T true. You KNOW that's not going to happen, NOT because the Supreme Court is liberal, but because health care reform IS CONSTITUTIONAL.. Silly Republicans.

excon

PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

Quote:

---

By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?

---

And so they did .Perhaps you did not read the resolutions passed by large bipartisan majorities for BOTH wars ?

Tell me... where in the Constitution does it say that the wording of a war resolution that Congress passes needs the wording "we declare war " ? Don't waste your time looking for it. You won't find it.

Free healthcare would be a dream come true for some people like myself who can't afford health insurance and need the help. Humans are humans and deserve to be taken care of.

Not knowing your circumstances I can't comment . If you truly can't afford it then there are already many government safety net programs to fall back on.
But if you have the means then why should I pay for your health care ?

Why let people who are homeless die in the streets? Nobody's "worthless" and deserve help if needed..

Again... there are already provisions for the truly needy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

again ..... there are already provisions for the truly needy .

---

Hello itsamor:

Of course, this is the right wing mantra. It's just not so, as I'm sure you can attest.

excon

Idk if it's sleep deprivation but I don't know what you just said.. "right wing mantra" what is just not so? 0_o
Somebody come be an elitist prick and tell me how stupid I am!

Hello again, itsamor:

Slooooow down. You're just fine, and I ain't an elitist prick because I happen to know stuff...

A mantra is something that people repeat over and over again until it becomes believable. Right wing, is a political persuasion that MOST of the people have, who repeat the mantra.

Those people are the ones who believe that you HAVE health care now, but for some reason CHOOSE not to use it. You and I know that that's just nuts.

Nonetheless, for THAT reason, they're against passing a bill that would help you.

excon

Ohhh okay, I know what a mantra is but didn't know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that I want to help as much as I can.

Salvo all,

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

So how can you have one without the other - this is just hypocrisy

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

---

Hello again, p:

Last I heard, they're putting it off till next year.. That means never.

Say hello to President Palin.

excon

Quote:

---

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

---

No ;the Senate is delaying voting because they can't convince the General Accounting Office to massage the numbers so it doesn't appear to be a budget buster.

Quote:

---

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

---

I have been consistent that I favor basic safety net provisions for the truely needy.
I don't think it is inconsistent at all to say that massive government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient . The bigger it gets the more inefficient it is . Yes I think the vast majority are better off on their own without the "helping hand " of Super Nanny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

---

I'm sure that Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts WILL vote against it. Just as I'm sure that the 5 radical libs on the court with vote in favor of it.

Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean that the liberal courts are going to vote against it. We all know that to be true... well, everyone except you, of course. You still think the court is conservative.

Quote:

---

PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

---

Sure we should. But based on the EFFECTIVENESS of the war efforts, I'd say that we're getting our money's worth. So... it's both cost effective AND constitutional. That's why I'm not worried about it.

Quote:

---

PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

---

We've been through this before. Congress not only declared war, they did so TWICE. You can claim that they didn't all you want, but they did. Facts are stubborn things.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

---

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

Let's put it this way... if for 30 years you were getting attacked by mosquitoes, and then suddenly in the past 8 years you didn't, I'd wonder what you were doing differently, because it would seem to have been effective.

You, of course, would chalk it up to accident.

Quote:

---

The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

---

Yeah... about that unmitigated disaster...

War in Iraq has accomplished:

1) Freedom for 25 million Iraqis from a dictatorial regime,
2) The creation of a parlimentary democracy,
3) The formation of a national police force and military that is increasingly taking charge of its own national security,
4) Increased employment,
5) Increased wages,
6) Increased productivity,
7) Increased oil production,
8) New schools, hospitals and other infrastructure necessary to grow society,
9) reflooding of the marshlands of southern Iraq which were intentionally drained by Saddam Hussein and which destroyed the culture of Marsh Arabs living there. We have rebuilt the marshlands and given the Marsh Arabs a place to live again.
10) reinstituted a non-corrupt, fair Iraqi judicial system.
11) Reinsitituted free press in Iraq.
12) Ended the factional wars within Iraq.
13) the destruction of 38,000 chemical munitions, 480,000 litres of chemical agents and 1.8 million litres of precursors of chemical agents. (You didn't know about that one, did you?)

And, of course, there's # 14) We have not had a terrorist attack against us in 8 years.

Yeah... I can see where you'd call all of that an "unmitigated disaster"...

NOT!!

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsamor

Ohhh okay, i know what a mantra is but didnt know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that i want to help as much as i can.

---

So... when you are a doctor or nurse or whatever, and you are working 60 hours a week (as many health care professionals do), are you going to expect to be paid for your services? Or will you be working for free just because you want to help people.

Keep in mind that you are going to have either a mortgage or rent to pay, as well as taxes, the costs of food, clothing, perhaps the occasional movie or concert. Presumably you will eventually have children, and you will need to pay for their food, clothing and toys as well. How are you going to pay for all of that if you are going to be working for free?

Or are you expecting someone to just give you all those things for free?

And do you expect the doctor who went through 4 years of medical school, 2 years of internship, 2 of residency, and 2 of fellowship (for relatively low pay with very long hours) and who had to take loans to live on during those 10 years of professional training (because he was getting paid very little) to work for free and not pay off his loans? Or his food costs? Or rent?

Why would he or she choose to work their tail off for 10 years or more if they aren't going to make money out of the deal? Just because they love to help their fellow man?

Love doesn't pay the bills, young lady. Your landlord isn't going to accept your love as compensation for your use of his apartment. The grocer isn't going to except good intentions as payment for his fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs. The clothing store isn't going to accept nice feelings as payment for the clothing you wear.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Now... How much should you be paid for your work?

---

How much are you being paid for your work? You go first.
Edit to add: please add where you went to school and how much you spent for your education.

All right.

I make in the high-five figure range... bordering on 6 figures.

I went through 12 years of private school education at roughly $10,000 a year for tuition before going to Brooklyn College for roughly $1500 per semester. Because I only went to college part-time, I went for 6 years.

Total education cost: approx $138,000.

And even with all that information, you don't understand the point I'm making with itsamor.

So watch and learn.

Elliot

Salvo

What ever you achieve in life you should be proud of it, if you realise your dreams then you should be happy, money doesn't always do this for people

For me, I had both private and public eductaion, but I have learnt more in life after I left school than I did during

Personally I earn enough to keep me and my family happy, and can earn more if needed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

---

Hello again, Elliot:

Actually we HAVE been attacked. Otherwise 4,000 American soldiers wouldn't be dead, and they are. Why should they come here to attack us, when we put our soldiers in their back yard? All they have to do is put a bomb on their street and there's a few dead Americans... We make it EASY for them to attack us.

You sure do count funny.

excon

Exactly, all they have to do is bomb - ask Madrid, London, Bali, Pakistan etc. post 9-11.

The lives of 4000 lost are to be thanked and respected for the work they have done protecting us and ensuring our liberty.



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

Let's put it this way... if for 30 years you were getting attacked by mosquitoes, and then suddenly in the past 8 years you didn't, I'd wonder what you were doing differently, because it would seem to have been effective.

You, of course, would chalk it up to accident.



Yeah... about that unmitigated disaster...

War in Iraq has accomplished:

1) Freedom for 25 million Iraqis from a dictatorial regime,
2) The creation of a parlimentary democracy,
3) The formation of a national police force and military that is increasingly taking charge of its own national security,
4) Increased employment,
5) Increased wages,
6) Increased productivity,
7) Increased oil production,
8) New schools, hospitals and other infrastructure necessary to grow society,
9) reflooding of the marshlands of southern Iraq which were intentionally drained by Saddam Hussein and which destroyed the culture of Marsh Arabs living there. We have rebuilt the marshlands and given the Marsh Arabs a place to live again.
10) reinstituted a non-corrupt, fair Iraqi judicial system.
11) Reinsitituted free press in Iraq.
12) Ended the factional wars within Iraq.
13) the destruction of 38,000 chemical munitions, 480,000 litres of chemical agents and 1.8 million litres of precursors of chemical agents. (You didn't know about that one, did you?)

And, of course, there's # 14) We have not had a terrorist attack against us in 8 years.

Yeah... I can see where you'd call all of that an "unmitigated disaster"....

NOT!!!!

Elliot

---

Firstly I am not saying that what both our nations have achieved in Iraq was not worthwhile because I agree with elliot in this

However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Actually we HAVE been attacked. Otherwise 4,000 American soldiers wouldn't be dead, and they are. Why should they come here to attack us, when we put our soldiers in their back yard? All they have to do is put a bomb on their street and there's a few dead Americans... We make it EASY for them to attack us.

You sure do count funny.

excon

---

Excon,

Do you really see no difference between the two? You think there is no difference between the soldier who dies on the battlefield to defend his country and the civilian who dies in an office building blown up by a terrorist?

Both have died tragicaly. But only one of them chose their destiny and their duty. One is the death of some guy at work. The other is the death of a man or woman who chose to stand between the enemy and civillians to protect them.

You really see no difference?

Has your mind become that addled with age?

Or has the addled effect been caused by liberalism?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

As ET mentioned:


Physician in the US:

AFTER college, [ 22yo ]
4 years mendical school [ 26 yo ]
at least 3 if not more, 7 for a lot of surgical subspecialties, [ 29 yo 35 yo ]

in the majority of cases 6 figure debt

onto a career - 60 - 80 hour weeks are not unusual

now that one makes top 25 % of incomes or more, MORE TAXES

At anytime, by anyone, for whatever reason you can loose your livelihood, your reputation, your assets by a malparactice suit: the majority of which have no merit, or are dismissed, but the legal, emotional and time costs can never be recovered.


So, if you have finished college, your looking at least 7years, 6 figure debt, long hours, more taxes, the threat of malpractice, and you have to run a business. Then you have an administration that is seeking to limit you income and raise your taxes. Still want to be a doctor?




G&P

---

Yes but you have left out the compensations, the Merc, the Boat, the house, Your surely don't expect it to be an easy ride but what business doesn't need a business loan to get started and a certain amount of effort to get established. Once you are established you can opt for less hours and use your expertise to manage your investments. Don't expect us to feel sorry for you, most doctor live a life the rest of us can only dream of

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Firstly I am not saying that what both our nations have achieved in Iraq was not worthwhile because i agree with elliot in this

However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?

---

Which values would those be?

I seem to remember a vote by 80% of the Iraqi people to accept their own system of parlimentary democracy and their own constitution. I seem to remember at least two other votes by 80% of the Iraqi people to elect their leadership.

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.

Exactly which values do you think we forced on them? Which values did they not choose for themselves and had foisted on them by us? This is a common argument and assumption, especially from anti-war groups and individuals, but I have yet to see it substantiated.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.


Elliot

---

Don't be niave Elliot you know Iraq could not have accepted any form of government other than they did. Imposing democracy instead of dictatorship was Bush's policy. People vote for candidates, they don't vote for people who are not candidates. Democracy was the price of getting the US to leave, they paid the price but haven't got the goods and who knows what will develop in the future. Iraq has taken a predictable path, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Which values would those be?

I seem to remember a vote by 80% of the Iraqi people to accept their own system of parlimentary democracy and their own constitution. I seem to remember at least two other votes by 80% of the Iraqi people to elect their leadership.

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.

Exactly which values do you think we forced on them? Which values did they not choose for themselves and had foisted on them by us? This is a common argument and assumption, especially from anti-war groups and individuals, but I have yet to see it substantiated.

Elliot

---

As usual missing the point, the institutions we have set up in Iraq are based on the ideals of our police force, water board, electricity grids, etc etc etc - Because we were the ones who trained them it is therefore our values and influence on them

Or has this one past you by as well?

As for democratic - well that was a new idea to them as Iraq has never been democratic, so where did they get the idea of democracy - hmm I wonder!

And pal, I am in no way anti war - I see the point of war, particular when you stay behind to clean up and sort out , so please don't fool yourself that I fit into a neat little box that america loves to have people in

And by the way, when referring to Iraq, when I say we, I mean the US and the UK as we both worked together for a common goal, but of course there was no influence from either side to each other that would ultimatly lead both of our sides to change policy for a better way of doing things - oh that couldn't happen could it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Don't be niave Elliot you know Iraq could not have accepted any form of government other than they did. Imposing democracy instead of dictatorship was Bush's policy. People vote for candidates, they don't vote for people who are not candidates. Democracy was the price of getting the US to leave, they paid the price but haven't got the goods and who knows what will develop in the future. Iraq has taken a predictable path, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy

---

I will add this Clete, BP have just signed a contract to pump oil in parts of Iraq, so now you have foreign investment which means the workers will be trained to a western standard, the structure of the company withhin Iraq will be of western design, and the government their will start to receive oil to sell on the open market, I think BP are being paid $2 per barrel to start with, so not a bad deal, and with money coming in they will hopefully stay with an elected democracy and invest the money in services for the rest of the nation

The path is their for them to take, but I can't see them doing it without stabilisers for awhile

Cheers to the coalition . My favorite moment of the war was the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charge.

Just in case nobody knows about it tom

Bayonet Brits kill 35 rebels | The Sun |News

And another

BBC NEWS | UK | Military cross for bayonet charge ( let me know if you can't see this - don't know if it is country protected)

Makes me proud to be british!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

As usual missing the point, the institutions we have set up in Iraq are based on the ideals of our police force, water board, electricity grids, etc etc etc - Because we were the ones who trained them it is therefore our values and influence on them

Or has this one past you by as well?

---

So, let me get this straight... you consider waterworks, electric grids, police forces, etc. to be "values"?

We taught them methods to build an infrastructure that they were lacking. And you consider that to be "pressing our values on them"? I'm not reading anything into this or putting words in your mouth. This is what YOU are saying.

Do you really consider these things to be "values" the way democracy, liberty, justice, etc. are "values?

In direct answer to your question, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH USING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTUR, BUILDING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS TO HELP THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

Do you?

There is a whole world of difrference between that and "values?

In direct answer to your question, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH USING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTUR, BUILDING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS TO HELP THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

Do you?

There is a whole world of difrference between that and ".

So, no, I wasn't missing the point, but I think YOU are.

Quote:

---

As for democratic - well that was a new idea to them as Iraq has never been democratic, so where did they get the idea of democracy - hmm I wonder!

---

How about from their next door neighbors in Iran... who until the Shah was ousted operated as a democratic society. Or how about from watching us and DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES that this is what they wanted. Remember that 80% of them voted for this... it wasn't FORCED on them. Teaching is a whole different animal from FORCING.

Quote:

---

And pal, I am in no way anti war - I see the point of war, particular when you stay behind to clean up and sort out , so please don't fool yourself that i fit into a neat little box that america loves to have people in

---

I didn't say you were. I said that your argument comes most often from those who are. Please read the post again... and then come back and tell me about "reading between the lines" and putting words in people's mouths.

Quote:

---

And by the way, when referring to Iraq, when I say we, I mean the US and the UK as we both worked together for a common goal, but of course there was no influence from either side to each other that would ultimatly lead both of our sides to change policy for a better way of doing things - oh that couldn't happen could it!

---

No disagreement there. You guys did your part. You played it straight up with us. Never said you didn't. I was just answering excon's argument that there were no gains from Iraq and that the whole thing was an "unmitigated disaster". Clearly you disagree with that point as well.

And since when does "influencing Iraq" become the same as "pressing our values on them"? Of course we influenced them. Where's the problem with that. As long as we don't FORCE them, where's the issue?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

How about from their next door neighbors in Iran... who until the Shah was ousted operated as a democratic society.

---

Hello again, p:

Interestingly, the Wolverine fails to mention that the USA IMPOSED the Shah upon the Iranian people, as the USA is want to do. He came to power during World War II after a CIA organized coup of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

I wonder why he doesn't mention stuff like that?? Believe his posts at your own peril.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I will add this Clete, BP have just signed a contract to pump oil in parts of Iraq, so now you have foreign investment which means the workers wil be trained to a western standard, the structure of the company withhin Iraq will be of western design, and the government their will start to recieve oil to sell on the open market, I think BP are being paid $2 per barrel to start with, so not a bad deal, and with money coming in they will hopefully stay with an elected democracy and invest the money in services for the rest of the nation

The path is their for them to take, but I can't see them doing it without stabilisers for awhile

---

So BP, a multinational gets a contract, whoopido! This is "democracy" in action!

I seem to remember that long ago Iraq had a viable oil industry even under a dictatorship. I expect you are about to tell me that this is better because more than one person might benefit. Without getting involved in historic detail, we have the richest nation in the middle east reduced to paupership and then we have multinationals being awarded contracts to exploit resources and this is democracy in action. We will see where they invest the money, perhaps not in palaces, not in skud missiles, perhaps in shopping malls, perhaps in numbered accounts and I expect they don't really need the "stabilizers" in the form of US troops in bases to help them do it. I expect they see themselves being able to do it alone

No where does it say it will be free. We will have to pay for it according to our income.
Somebody has to pay for it whether the government says the employer or you have to pay or it comes out of our taxes it IS going to cost US.

Ever heard of Medicare/ Medicaid? Both are government healthcares. Look how well those worked out. President Obama should fix up those health care plans before he makes a knew one, which will cost billions of dollars, and need I remind you of the current recession that we are in? Who does he think is going to pay for this?

Exactly. What has the government EVER fixed?They made a mess of every financial thing they ever got involved in.

This says it all

YouTube - The Government Can - Tim Hawkins (cc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

No where does it say it will be free. We will have to pay for it according to our income.
Somebody has to pay for it whether the government says the employer or you have to pay or it comes out of our taxes it IS going to cost US.

---

The gov't can't run the railroads, post office, VA, Fannie, Freddie, Farty or Darty; why on earth would anyone give the Feds 'health care'? Because it makes someone feel good and gives someone else a lot of power. All power to the gov't; screw the people.