$180 Billion Dollars For Iraq, ZERO Dollars For American Children

October 4, 2007 at 8:33 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, corruption, family values, George W Bush, King George, McCain, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Ron Paul | 12 Comments

DemFromCT puts it in perspective what Bush’s veto of the child health care bill really means.

George W. Bush is requesting $180 billion dollars for next year ALONE. The child health care bill would have cost $60 billion OVER FIVE YEARS. This is the priority of the Republican party. The four top contenders on the Republican side were all against this bill. Put them in office, America, and your children will never see health care. But you will see more warfare.

Oh and Ron Paul? What did he think? he voted against it.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. The title here is misleading. It should say something like, “180 billion dollars for the corporations benefitting from death and destruction in Iraq,” or, “180 billion dollars for the secret combinations running this country,” or something like that.

  2. heh, I couldn’t think quickly of a title short enough to get the point across. 🙂

  3. Well, I think Matthew 18:6 puts it in pretty good perspective as well:

    But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

  4. Amen brothers.

  5. well pointed out Guy.

  6. Ron Paul, despite what you may think of him, is strictly voting based on what the Constitution authorizes the government to do. If the founding documents don’t claim the reponsibility of the government to do something, then it’s clearly not within the scope of the government’s charter.

    Amend the Constitution to allow the government to do what some are willing to claim is its right to do, and he might be persuaded to vote for it instead of against it.

    As it is, the purpose of the Constitution is to draw strict boundaries around what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not.

    Once upon a time, Congress clearly understood that in order for the Federal Government to declare a war on alcohol, the Constitution needed to be amended to allow it. Somewhere along the way, that clear understanding was lost, and now they spend money on every program that comes along, without specifically authorizing the government to get involved in the program of the week, or every foreign entanglement that strikes the Executive Branch’s fancy.

  7. Mark,

    You know I’ve heard that argument before, but I keep going to the fact that the world today is actually QUITE different than when the Founding Fathers lived. I think there are a lot of things done today that they would wholeheartedly approve of. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was quite supportive of public education, as an example. I don’t think we should box in what the Founding Fathers created based on what we think they believed. I think that our Founding Fathers would find much reprehensible with our state of affairs today, but I think they are more shrewd and less idealistic than you, Ron Paul, or other “libertarians” paint them to be.

  8. If we’re going to respect the Constitution, then we need to amend it to show the expanded powers that have been, or will be, handed over to the government.

    If we’re not going to respect the Constitution, then I suppose we deserve every underhanded trick either party wants to pull on us when it comes to undermining our civil liberties.

    It’s a little strange to be complaining how the Bush administration wants to treat the Constitution as a G-D’ed piece of paper with regard to the Bill of Rights, and then allow the party in power, whenever, to do the same thing under expanded governmental powers for other programs and not complain in the least.

  9. Mark,

    Is public education allowable by the Constitution?

  10. Not by the Federal Government. That would be something up to the individual states to handle.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Simple Bill of Rights stuff, Dan.

  11. Mark,

    But you quote a part of the Bill of Rights that says either delegated or not prohibited. So is public education PROHIBITED by the Constitution?

  12. It’s clear as crystal: the Constitution says nothing about any department of education, therefore it is neither delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution, and even though it’s not specifically named as a matter belonging to the states, therefore, by default, it is, nonetheless, a matter under the control of “the States respectively, or to the people”. Make no mistake, the Federal government ain’t “the people”.

    The Federal Government was never supposed to be the be-all, end-all, uber-government intruding into every aspect of our lives. Local control is almost always better than centralized control. The people at the top can never see all of the details that make up the individual circumstances that affect any given locality. Centralized control usually results in loss of agency (or in the attempt, however doomed to fail it may be, to reduce the agency of those at the local leve).

    Who makes the final decisions concertning any given family in the LDS Church? Salt Lake City, or the mother and father in that home?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: