Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

[Iceberg]

If that's your only argument, then we should disband the Department of Defense entirely, because it wastes a LOT more money than ANY social welfare program. Billion-dollar boondoggles like the B-1 and B-2 bombers, DD-21, Stryker and the F-22 fighter program come quickly to mind.

Funny, I think we happen to be getting our money's worth out of our military. A first rate military costs a lot and I'm fine with that notion.

So am I, but I'd like a little more accountability at the Pentagon than we've got evidence of.

I'd rather spend the money on billion dollar bombers than body bags. The Pentagon isn't perfect though, it's far from it and I'd love to see reform there as well as the whole government. I've never said it's perfect.

Those were examples of programs that ran FAR over budget (the F/A-22 has not only run over budget, its promised delivered capability has steadily declined over the last decade). And those are just EXAMPLES - the Pentagon has not brought a single important military project in at or under budget in three decades. It's also wasted VAST sums of money - estimated at more than a hundred billion dollars (constant) a year for the last two decades - without the slightest sign of where that money went.

But that still doesn't mean that social welfare programs are any less wasteful. Or change the fact that Social Security stands to bankrupt the US.

Social Security hasn't caused 2.3 trillion dollars to disappear into the ether in the last two decades, either. The Pentagon has.

And you want to add another program equally sweeping with no concrete plan, at least none presented, for funding it.

I don't know because Dr. Dean hasn't unveiled his economic plan yet - that was and is scheduled for mid-October.

[Joe]

I'll be honest with you. That afternoon, after I had been dealing with watching those towers collapse all day, and I saw those parasites dancing in the streets, I was ready to kill them all. That's how angry I was.

So, yeah, I can forgive Bush or his speechwriter, whoever came up with it, for getting a bit too emotional during those days.

[Joe]

Social Security hasn't caused 2.3 trillion dollars to disappear into the ether in the last two decades, either. The Pentagon has.

Source. And that's still only 115 billion dollars a year. The great Social Security IOU we call the trust fund, by contrast, gets bigger by a number larger than that on a yearly basis.

[Iceberg]

Oh Iceberg, please explain to me how you would have us deal with Iraq and Afghanistan with out a dime. Since you oppose the request for fund, how would you have us do it? You seem to have forgetten to enlighten us on that. Please share, I can't wait to hear it.

Pointing out other things that could be done with the money is not the same as thinking that Iraq and Afghanistan should be ignored. Clearly, they have to be dealt with, because we made the mess and it would be extremely irresponsible of us not to clean it up.

[Stormbringer]

So am I, but I'd like a little more accountability at the Pentagon than we've got evidence of.

I agree with you; I think the Pentagon needs to trim the fat . But none of that has anything to do with the viability of the Dean's health care plan. So far you've given me no reason to believe it any more viable or fiscally solevent than the other social welfare programs, the king of which menaces the very solevency of the US government.

Social Security hasn't caused 2.3 trillion dollars to disappear into the ether in the last two decades, either. The Pentagon has.

Thats right. That's becuase the money to pay for it's in the pockets of the taxpayer. We're just going to have to be rung dry for it in the coming decades.

I don't know because Dr. Dean hasn't unveiled his economic plan yet - that was and is scheduled for mid-October.

So we're supposed to take his word that it'll all work? Pardon me, I think I'll pass. I've seen enough of it and I'm guessing it's going to come out of my pocket, heavily so. No thanks.

[Iceberg]

As opposed to taking President Bush's word that his reckless deficit spending will be adequately paid for before it bankrupts the US government? Thanks, no.

I'll go with the guy who's proven that he can balance a budget.

[Stormbringer]

Pointing out other things that could be done with the money is not the same as thinking that Iraq and Afghanistan should be ignored. Clearly, they have to be dealt with, because we made the mess and it would be extremely irresponsible of us not to clean it up.

But you're not suggesting how we pay for them now are you? You're opposed to it. That's a difference. You want to funnel the money into Dean's plan with no alternative to pay for rebuilding. If you want to blame Bush for not doing it, you'd better have a plan to do it. Neither you or Dean has suggested any plan at all.

[Stormbringer]

As opposed to taking President Bush's word that his reckless deficit spending will be adequately paid for before it bankrupts the US government? Thanks, no.

I'll go with the guy who's proven that he can balance a budget.

And thinned the wallets of Vermonters to do it. That'll do wonders for the economy.

[Joe]

As opposed to taking President Bush's word that his reckless deficit spending will be adequately paid for before it bankrupts the US government? Thanks, no.

I'll go with the guy who's proven that he can balance a budget.

Bush was running a budget surplus when he left Texas, look at him now. Hate to break it to you, but handling a state budget as a governor is quite different from handling the federal budget as the President.

[Iceberg]

As opposed to taking President Bush's word that his reckless deficit spending will be adequately paid for before it bankrupts the US government? Thanks, no.

I'll go with the guy who's proven that he can balance a budget.

And thinned the wallets of Vermonters to do it. That'll do wonders for the economy.

I fail to get outraged about a tax rate that's less than half a percent above the national average.

[Iceberg]

As opposed to taking President Bush's word that his reckless deficit spending will be adequately paid for before it bankrupts the US government? Thanks, no.

I'll go with the guy who's proven that he can balance a budget.

Bush was running a budget surplus when he left Texas, look at him now. Hate to break it to you, but handling a state budget as a governor is quite different from handling the federal budget as the President.

Bush's surplus evaporated the second he left office, because it was entirely composed of accounting tricks. Dean's surplus has survived. His successor - a Republican - credited Dean's fiscal policies for creating a situation where the state could maintain a surplus, while Bush's successor - also a Republican - put much of the blame for the current deficit on Bush's management.

[Axis Kast]

hen you're not listening. Howard Dean and John Kerry have both said loudly and often that they plan to maintain defense spending if at all possible, and raise it if necessary.

It's not their fault that you lack verbal comprehension.

BTW, Sore Loserman tried to get a cheap shot on Dean last night, claiming he was an anti-Semite. The reason? Dean proposed to step back to an "honest broker" status as regards Israel and Palestine, which history shows is the only way the two step away from their "blades locked at each other's throat" stance.

Sure. A man whose wife and kids are Jewish is an anti-Semite. Right.

The average American is unaware of anything but the stereotype that Democrats are soft on defense; commitments to defense by any Democratic candidate would surprise many voters considering the vicious lampooning of the left as chronically weak and overly passive throughout the past year.

Lieberman was technically aiming more at exposing the fact that Dean would abandon long-time allies, although I agree the point of the jab was to provide an opening by which the Vermont politician could expose himself to the criticism of Jewish voters.

EDIT: Sorry, that's 60% of Americans don't want to re-elect George Bush; 47% of Americans would elect a Democratic candidate.

I have news for you: 60% of Americans will be disappointed because George W. Bush is the only Republican candidate that’s going to run. And 47% of Americans isn’t over half of the population either.

How are you going to "do something about it" (great plan, BTW), without infringing on Americans' rights? Like it or not, it is somebody's right to legal redress if they feel they have been wronged. You will find no argument from me against the idea that tort reform is needed, but how will you accomplish this?

However unpopular, an argument that those choosing private healthcare open themselves to risks of malpractice could be made. At that point, we’d set a series of wide-ranging “caps” on the potential handout of malfeasant physicians or HMOs.

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

Dean could never actually put his hands on that $87 billion unless he planned to pull the United States completely out of the War in Iraq, an action that could have potentially catastrophic consequences vis a vie public perception of American resolve in foreign policy. Assuming he planned to stay in under the guise of U.N. approval, much of that $87 billion would still go to troops in Iraq anyway: U.N. forces won’t arrive overnight.

All of which can be laid directly on the doorstep of George Walker Bush, with a flaming bag of dog poo.

I wasn’t aware that George Walker Bush planned to pull American troops out of Iraq and change the way other countries analyze the calculus of power.

Quit putting words into my mouth, asshole. Obviously, abandoning the troops - or Iraq - would be a very bad idea at this moment (BTW, the President is doing a great job of abandoning Afghanistan by himself). However, it is illustrative that if George W. Bush had not pursued his personal vendetta in Iraq, we would have that kind of money in the budget.

We abandoned Afghanistan from the viewpoint of reconstruction, not military action.

“Personal vendetta?” Opinion masquerading as fact. You’ve no actual proof to substantiate that Bush “went to war for daddy” – especially because the entire concept of war in Iraq was a non-issue until September 11th of last year. The younger Bush reopened the door to criticisms of his father’s actions in Iraq in he first place.

[Sam Or I]

The majority of Americans who do have health care, have it as a work benefit - benefits which can be cut at any time, and which increasingly ARE cut, as companies look for ways to cut costs (while still cutting their CEOs multi-million or even multi-billion dollar paychecks, at the same time that they cut worker pay and benefits "for the good of the company").

I am going to call BS on this, at least in California. If an employee works more than 18 hours a week, the employer by law has to offer them minium health care benefits. So even the full time job at Micky-D's has a choice for minium health care.

[Stormbringer]

And thinned the wallets of Vermonters to do it. That'll do wonders for the economy.

I fail to get outraged about a tax rate that's less than half a percent above the national average.

You might not. In fact I doubt you would if it'd let you live in your nanny-state. But raising taxes nationally to fund a program of dubious value and intergrity isn't going to endear him to voters.

And in the long run any national health care system run by the government's likely to wind up like Social Security: a finacial nightmare and millstone around the neck of the American taxpayer. I've yet to see any evidence that Dean's plan is anything more than a pie in the sky dream that'll wind up pushing us towards even greater financial woes.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind I like the idea of some sort of national health care system; I do not necessarily endorse the Dean plan of re-distributing the war money to do it. The Pentagon has its own problems, it actually consumes a small portion of the GNP. The problem is not how much money is being spent, but how it is being spent. We'd be better off with more combat ready brigades and training than a few more fancy toys.

But as to health care--

I don't have insurance and I suppose it could be considered a 'choice' but my selection is narrow. I can get insurance, and blow up to $130.00+ a month in the hopes that I don't get sick, or I can have something left after rent, food, utilities, car payments, car insurance (mandatory after all) and other necessities. Not everyone really has this 'choice'.
And lets face it-- that money is supposed to be there if we get sick or injured, but many times insurance won't cover it or covers only a small amount-- and then, in thanks, our rates go higher.

The problem with a national health care system is that it is portrayed as vacuuming up 90% of the funds to go to cancer and AIDS patients. But a health system that only covers common ailments and injuries could be possible.

And people who engage in high risk or self destructive behavior (smoking, for example, or the obese who are not suffering from actual hormonal or genetic predisposition but plain old chow hounding) would have to pay for corrective surgeries or special meds. And things like Lasik or cosmetic surgery would be paid for by the individual as well (unless the plastic surgery was to help an injury victim lead a normal life-- I'm talking about face-lifts for vanity's sake).

The problems about gov't waste and mismanagement are valid, but what do we have now? Waste and mismanagement of a different sort, and much of it to the benefit of insurance companies.

[Stormbringer]

The problems about gov't waste and mismanagement are valid, but what do we have now? Waste and mismanagement of a different sort, and much of it to the benefit of insurance companies.

Yes, but with programs like Medicare and Social Security projected to eat up fifty percent or more of our income, I don't think any one with a realistic appreciation of the situation wants to give the job to the federal government. We'd end up with something even more wasteful and less responsive than the insurance companies.

I'll support a national health care plan when it's the better option for the nation as a whole. Right now it's absolutely not.

[Iceberg]

The majority of Americans who do have health care, have it as a work benefit - benefits which can be cut at any time, and which increasingly ARE cut, as companies look for ways to cut costs (while still cutting their CEOs multi-million or even multi-billion dollar paychecks, at the same time that they cut worker pay and benefits "for the good of the company").

I am going to call BS on this, at least in California. If an employee works more than 18 hours a week, the employer by law has to offer them minium health care benefits. So even the full time job at Micky-D's has a choice for minium health care.

Sorry, that's just California.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but with programs like Medicare and Social Security projected to eat up fifty percent or more of our income, I don't think any one with a realistic appreciation of the situation wants to give the job to the federal government. We'd end up with something even more wasteful and less responsive than the insurance companies.

Since Canada's national health-care system has 1/3 of the per-capita administrative overhead of the existing American hybrid private/public Medicaid system, I would like to see you support your claim that a fully nationalized system must be more wasteful.

[Stormbringer]

Since Canada's national health-care system has 1/3 of the per-capita administrative overhead of the existing American hybrid private/public Medicaid system, I would like to see you support your claim that a fully nationalized system must be more wasteful.

I don't think it has to be. I just don't trust the politicions and paper pushers to deliver a system that is effective and efficient. Programs like Medicaid and Medicare are extremely wasteful and not particularly responsive. The fact that so many programs are money sucking black holes like that doesn't engender confidence in a national health care system.

I'm not eager to add more far reaching, expensive programs when when the ones we have don't work. Especially when there's no mention of how it'll be funded or administered.