that's our bush
Out of context: Reply #26
- Started
- Last post
- 153 Responses
- tommyo0
There are those who want children to recieve health care and those who want to lynch a young family in crisis...what side are you on?
zombiewoof
(Oct 11 07, 08:46)So those are the two sides huh? People who love children and people who hate children? There are extremists and I don't condone people going after these people, that's pretty despicable. But it's not as black and white as the two sides you're offering. There is a shit load of gray here.
I had a thought about this yesterday when I was driving home. It's pretty comparable to the homeland security department - which I'm sure a lot of you are against, as am I. The thing is, we had all the intelligence we needed to stop 9/11 before having a homeland security dept. There was just so much bureaucracy and inefficiency involved that nothing was done...so the government solution to the fore mentioned problems (inefficiency and bureaucracy) is to add MORE government bureaucracy by adding a new department ... costing us even more money. Why not work on the problems? Why throw more money at it, is that going to solve the problem?
When you state it as either being for health care for children or not being for health care for children, I think we all will pick the former. But I still fail to see how throwing more money at it, without fixing the underlying problems that are causing it is a solution. We all need affordable health care, not just children. Fix the damn problems. Adding taxes to support new programs is going to do nothing to fix the problem, in my opinion it will only add to the problem. We'll just have less and less money to spend on necessities like health care, shelter, transportation, retirement etc.