UC system approves 32% fee hike for students

[travesty]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34044243/ns/us_news-education/

Having been hit hard by cutbacks spawned by the CA state budget debacle the UC School system is, of course, raising fee to students. Enormously. It's a shitty situation but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, what did you think was going to happen? Being the hallmark state in the Union for progressive legislation California is now paying the price for not tempering their "feel good, help everyone" social intiatives with a dose of economic reality.

This highlights a dichotomy I think lies within all of us but those at the most extreme fringes of both sides of the political spectrum. The question of "where do you draw the line"? I think most people want to help other people in need and are willing to share a portion of their earning to do so. The problem is that there is always someone or something new that HAS to be adressed or we are told something catastrophic is going to happen to lots of people. The number of new public "needs" never ends. Regardless of how inane or absurd the idea, someone is lobbying to gain public funds or legislation for support. As different ideas gain traction many people think "that sounds great, I'd gladly give a little extra of my money if that idea were to be implemented". The problem is that money is a finite resource (shhhh don't tell Obama that, he'll say we can just print more) and it is simply impossible to support every good idea that comes along, let alone all the bad ideas (this means you Al Gore). So the question begs, "where do you draw the line"?

The Caifornia budget situation, to me, is proof positive that fiscal responsibility by the government should take precedent over public services. Without the former, there is no latter, as we are now seeing. The accounting methods that some states, and the Federal Government use to justify additional programs make mortgage security formulations from Golman Sachs look like 5th grade algebra. That leads me to the current healthcare bill and I have to ask everyone...do you really think we can afford this bill? Are you OK with an estimated $1T price tag over the next decade (estimate is highly emphasized here)? Is our country is sound enough financial shape after TARP, and the stimulus to logically afford this Bill? Or are we collectively signing a no credit check, no down payment mortgage for a house we can't even afford to furnish? Because if we know now that we are going to get foreclosed on in the future (i.e. the program is ultimately unsustainable as Medicare and Scoial Security are) then isn't it irresponsible, and even borderline criminal, to go through with this?
Just asking what you think.

[Schmeltz]

The problem is that money is a finite resource (shhhh don't tell Obama that, he'll say we can just print more) and it is simply impossible to support every good idea that comes along, let alone all the bad ideas (this means you Al Gore). So the question begs, "where do you draw the line"?

A great place to draw the line might be right down the middle of a defense budget that approaches the combined military spending of every other nation in the world put together. Seriously, you talk about the irresponsibility and borderline criminality of social spending when your last President squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war? Iraq was the bad idea, mang. Spending money on health care for American citizens, or on saving the jobs of American citizens, isn't a bad idea. It might be inefficient or poorly planned or badly timed, but it's what the government is there to do. Spending money bombing the shit out of dirt-poor people on the other side of the world for no reason at all - that is a bad idea.

The no credit check, no down payment mortgage was signed years ago. If you're going to preach fiscal responsibility on the part of the government, start with the Pentagon. It still blows my mind that Americans can speak with such contempt about "feel good, help everyone" legislation because it means spending money, but remain completely comfortable with hemorrhaging money into a military-industrial complex that serves its own interests above anyone else's.

[travesty]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... spilt milk, lesson learned. I agree with you whoelheartedly, the defense spending in this country is way out of whack. The wars were a bad idea.
So now what? Spend more? Go further in to debt? I'm not asking if healthcare reform is a good idea. I'm asking if this bill (House version) is a good idea at this point in time.
Buying a home for your family is a good idea. Buying a home for your family when you can not afford one is not. See the difference?

[p-branez]

this is happening all across the u.s., not particular to california. higher ed really isn't some social policy designed to help everyone. berkely and ucla are two of the best, most prestigious, selective, and expensive public schools in the country. and with no affirmative action (at least here in michigan), higher ed is only attainable for the well off.

the issues here are only indirectly related. funds are allocated to specific duties and departments. cutting the defense budget means cutting jobs, grants, research, and production. and politicians are unlikely to cut funding for a defense budget that has historically been giant - it's just what the united states does.

there are a lot of americans who would rather bomb other countries than fund higher education, and their beliefs are just as valid as others.

[valvano]

A great place to draw the line might be right down the middle of THE ENTITLEMENTS PROGRAMS that approaches the combined military spending of every other nation in the world put together. Seriously, you talk about the irresponsibility and borderline criminality of social spending WHEN YOU'VE SPENT BILLIONS ON WAStED SOCIAL PROGRAMS? LBJ's GREAT SOCIETY was the bad idea, man. Spending money TO FUND MEDICAID AND MEDICARE FRAUD for American citizens, or on saving the jobs of GOVERNMENT BEAURACRATS IS a bad idea. It might be inefficient or poorly planned or badly timed, but it's what the government is there to do. TAXING AND SPENDING money EARNED BY HARD WORKING AMERICANS SO OTHERS CAN SIT ON THEIR ASS is a bad idea.

The no credit check, no down payment mortgage PROGRAMS DICTATED BY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WAS A MAJOR FAILURE. If you're going to preach fiscal responsibility on the part of the government, start with DEPT OF EDUCATION, WELFARE PROGRAMS, AMTRAK, PBS, AND OTHER WASTED AND BLOATED SOCIAL / ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. It still blows my mind that Americans can speak with such contempt about "feel good, help everyone" legislation because it means spending money, but remain completely comfortable with hemorrhaging money into a GOVT BEAUROCRACY OF LAZY ASS WORKERS that serves its own interests above anyone else's.

I fixed your paragraph for you, hope you dont mind:D

[RobMoney$]

It took exactly one post to get to the "defense spending" excuse!?

Gotta love how the left uses it to justify spending for every entitlement program they can come up with.

[DroppinScience]

Unfortunately a LOT of places (both "liberal" or "conservative") are going to be hiking up tuition drastically or are seriously looking into it. Sure, California is liberal, but here in Alberta we're not known as a liberal hotbed either and our post-secondary institutions could be hiking tuition as much as 66% for professional programs (i.e. law, medicine, nursing, etc.).

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/proposes+tuition+hikes/2240266/story.html

The global recession is hurting EVERYONE, regardless of the political leanings of any region.

[kaiser soze]

and defense spending is going up too so everyone wins!

the end.

[RobMoney$]

I personally think it's great.
Let the campus liberals put their money where their mouth is.

[YoungRemy]

really, rob?

you truly wish 33% fee increases on a top public university system?

[Bob]

you should apply to replace lou dobbs rob, you're good at this

[YoungRemy]

people who don't have a clue what's going on in California need to understand what's going on in Sacramento with the wonderful governor we have in place here...

California's Budget Deal a Win for Conservatives

After months of suspense, Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders come to an agreement

By Queenie Wong
Posted July 22, 2009
A deal struck between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California legislative leaders Monday evening to close the state's $26.3 billion budget deficit would significantly cut government spending without tax increases.

The plan comes after months of partisan bickering and nearly three weeks after the state began issuing IOUs to thousands of state contractors and vendors.

Among the state's $15 billion budget cuts:

$6 billion from K-12 schools and community colleges over two years
$3 billion from the University of California and California State University systems
$1.3 billion from Medi-Cal, the state's healthcare program for the poor
$1.2 billion from the state prison system

The government would also scale back on health insurance provided to low-income children and welfare checks issued to the poor.

"This is a sober time; there isn't a whole lot of good news in this budget," said Darrell Steinberg, president for tem of the California Senate. "We've cut in many areas that matter to real people, but we've done so responsibly."

Schwarzenegger, who compared the last few hours of Monday's negotiations to a "suspense movie," called the budget agreement "a great accomplishment."

The deal is a huge win for conservatives, who favor a smaller government, says John Ellwood, a professor at UC-Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. Taking the state back to 2005 spending levels, the plan would shrink general fund spending from $92 billion to $88 billion.

Cuts in government spending might not be fully effective because the state is in an economic free-fall, says Ellwood, who sits on the California Budget Project's board of directors, a liberal think tank.

"Revenues are just collapsing, and there are a lot of gimmicks in this [agreement] because politicians don't like to inflict pain, even conservatives," he says.

With a record number of home foreclosures and an unemployment rate of 11.6 percent, California's financial woes are far from over.

"In the short run it gets us through this year, and in the long run the same problem comes back even worse next year because $10 billion worth of gimmicks has been used that cannot be replicated," says Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor.

Noll says the long-term solution is more rational budgeting, which can't occur in the current administration because of 30 years of ballot initiatives by California voters.

"The reality is the system doesn't work, it is going to crash, and the only question is when," he says.

The budget plan also calls for more borrowing from local governments or redirecting of funds that had been earmarked for them.

Under the plan, the state would also launch its first offshore oil project in more than 40 years by expanding oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast. While opposed by many conservation groups, the project could generate about $100 million in the current fiscal year.

The State Assembly and the Senate are expected to vote on the budget proposal, which needs a two-third approval, as early as tomorrow.

If a budget agreement is not reached, Noll says that the results will be "catastrophic."

"If you don't actually have a budget, the state runs out of cash fairly quickly, and then [the government] would just have to shut down the whole enterprise."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/07/22/californias-budget-deal-a-win-for-conservatives.html

[Documad]

I don't live there and I've been estranged from my CA relatives for ages, but when I was a kid I thought that CA's tax system and the whole referendum thing was insane. Is it still true that people who live in CA don't pay appropriate property taxes? I know that my cousin used to pay less property taxes for a multimillion dollar home than my mom paid on her $150,000 house in MN. Then for the next few decades, didn't CA have special interest referendums that mandate that money be diverted to this and that cause? Aren't the legislators' hands tied to some extent? We recently started down that referendum road to a limited degree and it scares me. I suspect that watching the CA experiment fail will slow it down here.

I feel sorry for CA, and I think it's tremendously important to our national economy, but there's a limit to my sympathy. When you make bad choices for decades there are consequences. What should the legislature have cut instead of funds to colleges?

[Echewta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

I was in grade school then but i remember the year it pass, was the last year for field trips. No more money.

[valvano]

really, rob?

you truly wish 33% fee increases on a top public university system?

why dont all the students who are behaving like immature spoiled brats demand that the overpaid adminstration and tenured professors give up some of their overpaid salaries to help offset the difference? if they are that concerned about education, then let them put their money where their mouth is??

i recall several years ago students protesting to ensure that a lot of jobs like custodians, etc at the UC system be unionized so they could make "living wages", benefits, etc...well guess what kids, that costs more money. so now they complain about tuitition increases??? :confused:

[yeahwho]

It took exactly one post to get to the "defense spending" excuse!?

Gotta love how the left uses it to justify spending for every entitlement program they can come up with.



left? entitlement? excuse?

That money is real (http://costofwar.com/). When reasonable people post why don't you just take that at face value? It is a very appropriate response for any taxpayer to question these wars and the cost not only to lives but also our whole way of life, infrastructure and economy.

[Burnout18]

why dont all the students who are behaving like immature spoiled brats demand that the overpaid adminstration and tenured professors give up some of their overpaid salaries to help offset the difference? if they are that concerned about education, then let them put their money where their mouth is??

i recall several years ago students protesting to ensure that a lot of jobs like custodians, etc at the UC system be unionized so they could make "living wages", benefits, etc...well guess what kids, that costs more money. so now they complain about tuitition increases??? :confused:

immature spoiled brats never pay for shit...... everyone else like me gets to pay it back until they are 45 so thats kind of a fucking retarded comment. besides its the fucking tenured professors making 100k+ a year that are the problem not custodians.

[kaiser soze]

left? entitlement? excuse?

That money is real (http://costofwar.com/). When reasonable people post why don't you just take that at face value? It is a very appropriate response for any taxpayer to question these wars and the cost not only to lives but also our whole way of life, infrastructure and economy.

But it's for defense! It doesn't matter that pallets of money just vanishes, it's to keep them from fighting us over here!

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/oct/24/00007/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n13/ed-harriman/where-has-all-the-money-gone

I cannot believe people who consider themselves Americans don't give a shit about their hard earned money disappearing in another country.

[RobMoney$]

left? entitlement? excuse?

That money is real (http://costofwar.com/). When reasonable people post why don't you just take that at face value? It is a very appropriate response for any taxpayer to question these wars and the cost not only to lives but also our whole way of life, infrastructure and economy.


I'm not saying anyone is wrong to question the effectiveness or cost of the war.
But why is it that the liberals never question anything else?
Why not question all the entitlement programs?


USgovernmentspending.com (http://usgovernmentspending.com/) lists 2009 expenses as follows:
Health Care $1 trillion (15%) - Medicare, Public Health services, Welfare Medical coverages, Rehab services, ect.
Pensions $926 billion - Various retirement funds and Social Security
Education $905 billion (14%) - State Education, Libraries,
Defense $822 billion (13%) - Includes all military spending, Veterans benefits, Foreign Military & Economic Aid, and peace keeping operations.
Welfare $563 billion (9%) - Public Welfare, Unemployment Comp., Housing, ect.


According to these numbers, Defense spending is exactly 13% of our budget. Entitlement programs account for 65% of it.
I'm sorry, but using defense spending to justify anything is ridiculous.

[RobMoney$]

http://patdollard.com/2009/09/2010-welfare-budget-eclipses-amount-spent-on-entire-iraq-war/


As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.
By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”
Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs.

The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.
Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.
“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”
Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”


I cannot believe people who consider themselves Americans don't give a shit about their hard earned money disappearing in THIS country.

[yeahwho]

I'm sorry, but using defense spending to justify anything is ridiculous.

The price of war is more than money and the link I provided is not a annual amount of monies for the DOD it is the amount of our money being spent on current wars from the date they began.

You can be sorry all you want to be and it doesn't really matter to an intelligent citizen, this state of perpetual war is unacceptable. The burdens of which were never just "Over There" as the past administration liked to put it.

[RobMoney$]

Debating defense spending and war are two entirely different things.
You need to seperate the two.

[yeahwho]

Debating defense spending and war are two entirely different things.
You need to seperate the two.

What did I just do?

[RobMoney$]

You tried to turn a debate about economics into an anti-war rally with that "The price of war is more than money..." liberal mumbo jumbo.

[yeahwho]

You tried to turn a debate about economics into an anti-war rally with that "The price of war is more than money..." liberal mumbo jumbo.

The truth never really pervades your posts does it. I find you to be flippant and ignorant. It's not even reasonable to carry on a conversation with you because to me you have 0-nada-zilch-no ideas to help out your fellow countryman.

Just bitch bitch bitch about stooopid libs and fucking democrats taking over our healthcare. Dark Times for you head.

[RobMoney$]

My question is, how much more do my fellow countrymen want me to give?

I see zero-nada-zilch ideas about how my fellow countryman Obama is going to help me out.

[yeahwho]

My question is, how much more do my fellow countrymen want me to give?


I see zero-nada-zilch ideas about how my fellow countryman Obama is going to help me out.


Much of what you post is so abrasive I'm not sure wtf you're on about. You seem to delight more on finding wrong with others than substance. I have pointed out that it is more than adequate to put in the cost of war and the annual DOD budget as part of any economic package.

What I'm trying explain to you is this, the cost of war to any parent who has a son or daughter become psychologically damaged, physically wounded or killed in action goes beyond just money.

It isn't a fucking liberal issue unless you're so callous and obtuse you've decided this is just normal.

This isn't liberal mumbo jumbo (http://costofwar.com/), since I last posted that cost per taxpayer has risen from $7003 to $7007, in less than 48 hours.

The bigger cost is also real, especially in Afghanistan (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h12fwS0Ccpd6ukQ2kATTwkTZP_9AD9C43IR80).

A record number of deaths in October forced the nation to take new notice of Afghanistan as debate raged over whether President Barack Obama should send tens of thousands more troops there.

The deaths of 62 Americans — including three federal agents — in ambushes, roadside bombs and helicopter crashes turned a spotlight on an often overlooked reality: The war is forever shaping lives here.

To be quite honest... this discussion is sort of a waste of time and bandwidth. This is not a liberal or right wing issue, it is a budgetary issue and part of our ongoing issues is the monies flying out of our paychecks for the perpetual failure to resolve these conflicts in the middle east.

Why wouldn't you understand that?

[RobMoney$]

And as the information I provided to you clearly shows, the entire amount of money the US spends on defense is merely 13% of the budget while entitlement programs equal 65%.

Why would anyone advocate cutting the 13% program in order to increase the 65% program?

In fact, isn't the concern for the toll that war puts on the soldiers and their families as good a reason as any to increase the DOD budget so that we can provide more?
If anyone deserves to be taken care of, it's them.

[Schmeltz]

I fixed your paragraph for you, hope you dont mind:D

I do mind. Keep your half-literate ass out of my posts. Trying to be clever doesn't work if you can't spell "bureaucracy." Over!

Thanks for the numbers, Rob, but it looks as though you took one look at a conservative blogger's pie chart and took it for gospel. Here's some much more detailed analysis (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities), though from an admittedly more progressive perspective.

I'd also like to ask you exactly what you mean by "entitlement programs." And what do you mean when you lump education and people's pension funds under that umbrella? And aren't the American people "entitled" to security and freedom from all threats, foreign and domestic, so isn't the DOD budget just another "entitlement program" anyway? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, I get it now: you're spinning the discussion with GOP buzzwords that have little to no relevance to the subject at hand.

[yeahwho]

Schmeltz,

It's much more important to see the campus liberals put their money where theirs mouths are than stop wars in the middle east.

That would be great. The true cost of war is not nearly as important than that.

Whining on and on about defense spending to justify anything is ridiculous.

Campus liberals and their "We'll inherit the Earth (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://popup.lala.com/popup/360569509597380116&ei=yB4JS7ONIonWsQOYm-HACQ&sa=X&oi=music_play_track&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAgQ0wQoADAA&usg=AFQjCNGphOQEmqZcb66-NjU_87dcfbDrbQ)" bullshit.

[travesty]

29 responses and not one person answered my question of;

I have to ask everyone...do you really think we can afford this bill? Are you OK with an estimated $1T price tag over the next decade (estimate is highly emphasized here)? Is our country is sound enough financial shape after TARP, and the stimulus to logically afford this Bill? Or are we collectively signing a no credit check, no down payment mortgage for a house we can't even afford to furnish? Because if we know now that we are going to get foreclosed on in the future (i.e. the program is ultimately unsustainable as Medicare and Scoial Security are) then isn't it irresponsible, and even borderline criminal, to go through with this?
Just asking what you think.

[Schmeltz]

I answered it. Although somewhat indirectly. I felt the most important question you asked was "Where do you draw the line?" and I felt my answer - that the line isn't even on the radar anymore - was a good one. I mean, you've loaded that question with all kinds of assumptions but left out the glaringly obvious elephant in the room, which is your country's hyperinflated military expenditures - next to which the social programs that actually help your countrymen don't even hold a candle.

It wasn't "criminally irresponsible" to wage a useless atrocity of a foreign war, and it wasn't "criminally irresponsible" to fork billions of dollars over to failed financial speculators, but it is "criminally irresponsible" to give forty million ordinary Americans a health option that doesn't include exploitative, grasping for-profit insurance corporations. The reason you don't get a straight answer is because you're not asking a straight question. I think you've gotten 29 well-deserved responses here.

[RobMoney$]

I mean, you've loaded that question with all kinds of assumptions but left out the glaringly obvious elephant in the room, which is your country's hyperinflated military expenditures - next to which the social programs that actually help your countrymen don't even hold a candle.

I beg you to post a link to some facts that back this "irresponsible" claim up.

[DroppinScience]

I beg you to post a link to some facts that back this "irresponsible" claim up.

So you can say that the link in question told Schmeltz what to think?

[travesty]

I answered it. Although somewhat indirectly. I felt the most important question you asked was "Where do you draw the line?" and I felt my answer - that the line isn't even on the radar anymore - was a good one. I mean, you've loaded that question with all kinds of assumptions but left out the glaringly obvious elephant in the room, which is your country's hyperinflated military expenditures - next to which the social programs that actually help your countrymen don't even hold a candle.

Check your facts (http://www.federalbudget.com/) Schmeltz and quit spewing mistruths. Social security alone cost more than the defense budget. Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP are more than the defense budget and Interest on the national debt is more than the defense budget. I'm just asking if there is enough room on this pie for another $1T slice? No assumptions and the question is not loaded unless you are having problems justifying it to yourself.

It wasn't "criminally irresponsible" to wage a useless atrocity of a foreign war
Yes it was
and it wasn't "criminally irresponsible" to fork billions of dollars over to failed financial speculators
Yes it was
but it is "criminally irresponsible" to give forty million ordinary Americans a health option that doesn't include exploitative, grasping for-profit insurance corporations.
If it bankrupts the country then yes it is.

The reason you don't get a straight answer is because you're not asking a straight question. I think you've gotten 29 well-deserved responses here.
The reason I don't get a straight answer is because you keep posting.

[Schmeltz]

Check your facts (http://www.federalbudget.com/) Schmeltz and quit spewing mistruths.

I did check my facts, and at a much better website (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities) than that frenetic multicoloured third-rate geocities link you've put up there. Did you actually read any of those 29 other posts, or were you in such a hurry to congratulate yourself that you didn't bother?

It's fair to ask whether the massive expenditures proposed in this health care legislation can be sustained, I don't dispute that. The point I'm making is that they might be much more easily sustained if the colossal defense spending was reigned in. I bet you could find room on the pie for a big health care slice if you made the warfare slice a bit smaller. But of course nobody's ever going to take that into consideration, libertarian or not. Much better to slash social spending and abandon your fellow Americans to their fates, isn't it? Much more responsible.

[travesty]

Yes and if you remember this is what I said.......

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... spilt milk, lesson learned. I agree with you whoelheartedly, the defense spending in this country is way out of whack. The wars were a bad idea.
So now what? Spend more? Go further in to debt? I'm not asking if healthcare reform is a good idea. I'm asking if this bill (House version) is a good idea at this point in time.
Buying a home for your family is a good idea. Buying a home for your family when you can not afford one is not. See the difference?

I agree there is room to trim the military budget. But is it enough? I don't know. Will it happen? Not likely. It's certainly not being discussed and this bill is relying on other ways to pay for itself including massive tax increases for all Americans. So let's come back from the utopias that both of us imagine and deal with this bill as it is written and as it is being proposed. Is it the right choice for right now?

Providing health care to 12 million (or any other number you choose)Americans at the potential expense of the collapse of this Republic is VERY irresponsible. The fact is that those 12 Million Americans could be covered tomorrow with a simple adjustment of the Medicare and Medicaid guidelines so why all of the hubbbub and political wrangling? Why does the current House Bill still leave over 4 million Americans uninsured and potentialy 17 million (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-25-uninsured_N.htm) with the Senate Bill?

Schmeltz I have never argued whether healthcare reform is good idea or not. I am all for it yet you want to villify me as "uncaring" who would "leave my fellow Americans to their fate". Believe what you will. I realize that you feel threatened by my conservative views but nothing in any of my posts supports your view of my lack of concern for my fellow Americans. Lighten up. My only reason for starting this thread was to flush out the dullards like yourself who continue to defend admittedly bad legislation on principle alone. You'll wear anything with a "liberal" label on it, even if it's really just garbage bags.

[Schmeltz]

So let's come back from the utopias that both of us imagine and deal with this bill as it is written and as it is being proposed. Is it the right choice for right now?

Now there's the straight question we've all been waiting for. Frankly I don't think Obama has approached the question of health care reform in the right way at all. He's trying to fix the faucet with a hammer. His administration has produced a massively unwieldy yet completely gutless edifice of legislation that doesn't seem geared towards producing the results one would expect for all the effort and debate that seem to have gone into it. I think the problem is that he's trying to please everybody and has ended up pleasing nobody.

With that said, the American economy remains the most powerful and wealthy in the world, despite the recession and years of overspending. And it seems to me that the American health care system is in desperate need of reform. Because it fucking sucks. And that to delay that reform, when the system is only going to come under increasing strain as the American populace ages, to leave things as they are seems worse to me than actually making a genuine effort at improvement, whatever its various deficiencies might be. It's like Afghanistan - yeah, it's ugly and difficult and plagued with problems and nobody wants anything to do with it, but it's still got to be done. The focus should be on improving that effort to the greatest degree possible.

And finally, I think it very specious to argue that the reason money shouldn't be spent on helping American citizens with their basic needs is because too much has already been spent salvaging Wall Street and demolishing Iraq. Two strikes doesn't make an out, and the President still has to go up to bat.

I realize that you feel threatened by my conservative views

Oh please. Don't flatter yourself. It's your defense budget that really scares me.

[travesty]

And finally, I think it very specious to argue that the reason money shouldn't be spent on helping American citizens with their basic needs is because too much has already been spent salvaging Wall Street and demolishing Iraq. Two strikes doesn't make an out, and the President still has to go up to bat.

Especially when 3/4 of Obama's stimulus package has not been spent. Can we use some of that to fix healthcare? Pretty please?

[Schmeltz]

Sounds great. Write to your Congressman. Demand accountability.

[travesty]

Can we take all of these (http://jalopnik.com/5419802/an-iraqi-field-of-us-taxpayer+bought-trucks-stretching-to-the-horizon) to CarMax and use the money for Healthcare?