[Superman]

Rearden, impeachment does not require a crime. It only requires an absence of competence, which is obviously the situation we are in.

Thanks, Livi. I think.

I started this thread simply to discuss the shrewdness, or lack thereof, of Dubya's decision to veto. Not the question of whether that veto was appropriate from a practical, administrative perspective. Just the politics. The pure politics of being labeled as the guy who not only voted against, but used his veto authority to quash a bill that would have provided heath care to X million children.

But then you guys got to talking about the practical considerations, and I am pleased by reading that discussion. It was fruitful, and that is always my hope for our discussions. The guys who favor domestic spending for purposes like this argue:

* American dollars are better spent on Americans directly than on Iraqis who don't want us there in the first place, and who squander our contributions anyway.

* What's up with the bazillions we spend on private contractors with no oversight?


And the conservatives argue:

* Domestic spending is hurtful because it makes Americans lazy.

* We would all be dead but for the money we spend in Iraq killing terrorists and scaring the rest into not hating us any more.

___

I wonder how much health care costs it would take to make a poor child lazy. I mean, if we just check whether a bacterial infection is present versus a virus, that can't cost all that much and I can't imagine it causing permanent laziness. On the other hand, the cost of treating a serious infection might be very large, or amputation of the infected limb...that might be expensive too and might cause laziness. Of course, not treating the infection will cause the death of the child and perhaps that's the best way to go. That way, nobody's hard-earned money is wasted on this child and there would be no chance for the child to grow into a lazy adult who costs the taxpayer more money.

And what about this whole idea of laziness? I notice that Christ is reported to have suggested that we help those in need. Was He unaware of the damaging effect of this? Was He silly enough to imagine that victims might be grateful for the help? Maybe he just did not understand the consequences. Or maybe he knew the consequences, and made this request anyway.....in which case you guys are suggesting we ignore that assignment because of the burden.

BTW, I happen to agree that domestic assistance spending should encourage, rather than discourage, self-help. You guys talk as if domestic spending always causes laziness. I would not be surprised if you simply supported the notion that there should be no domestic spending.....after all, it's your (greed) tax dollars we're talking about. But I am surprised that you're doing this by pretending that all domestic spending is harmful.

I think we can do more. I think that if we're creating a community of lazybones, then that's wrong and we could do more. I think that programs which teach and encourage and provide resources toward economic independence and social responsibility are worth it. They are actually more expensive than the giveaway systems we have, but we lack the funds and the support in order to get the job done right. Do you guys oppose programs that can get the job done right? Would you oppose programs that take some of those lazybones folks and usher them into independence and success? Bear in mind, it would be more expensive up front. The pot of gold is the future. In the future those people will pay more taxes than they spend. If we don't do this, then they may always spend more than they pay.

I fear that many of you will sing the same song again, in response to my questions. But I am asking them anyway. Do you simply oppose all gubmit spending that helps people? or do you even know what you wish for, other than your nonsensical political beliefs and the wish that you could keep more of your money?