The $110 billion cost can be paid for instantly by ending our failed occupation of Iraq.

That's two wins for the Dem team with one stroke of a pen.

Question is, can anyone now in Congress (or running for president) set aside their richer-than-thou mindset and actually do what's right for average Americans?

The simple fact is, U.S. investors have been itching for another Vietnam ever since the Cockroach People forced an end to the last one. Now that they've got it, their paid lackeys in office aren't going to shut it down anytime soon. Maybe not until we riot in the streets again.

Americans did know what they were doing when they picked all Dems in the last election. They'll do it again in 2008 and then, finally, there will be no more excuses for Congress' not ending the war.

I think most nonrabid (read: non-neocon, non-fundamentalist, nonpathological) Americans would happily go down on Ms. Rodham Clinton if she would just deliver national coverage without job ties or coverage holes or preexisting conditions. I will be first in line. Or first in anyone else's line, should they fix what is so obviously and unforgivably broken.

Is Hilary's plan the best? Who cares? We'll take what we can get, and to h--- with the Right and the rich. The fiction that government should never step in is their own invention, and this propaganda will die with them.

So, go Hilary! Do the right thing, if you still can! Try to remember what you believed back at Wellesley. Act like the idealist you always wanted to be.

- MW

"The $110 billion cost can be paid for instantly by ending our failed occupation of Iraq."

Really?

Regardless of what people claim, the Congress Budget puts the war at 2 billion a month. Thats only 24 billion.

But lets see.

That pays for soldiers going over there and many defense contractors.

Or.

Dumping the money right into insurance companies that already take trillions from Americans.

And thats the low estimate for the costs. Lets not forget that Illegal Immigrants would have to be included under it, and that many people will drop their coverage before its inacted so that they wont have to have it costs their businesses.

And would it help any?

Probably not.

See, the thing is, it would cover only the care that is already legally forced upon hospitals to pick up. So what? It costs billions without changing a thing.

Way to go.

Good points as far as they go San, but you have to take my original idea in context.

The REAL cost of our lost war, as opposed to the BUDGETED cost, is one h--- of a lot higher than $24 billion per year. If losing in Iraq were truly as cheap as you say, then the total actual cost would not have mushroomed over the passage of time to the estimated $800 billion it stands at today.

I think that for a cool trillion, we could have gotten a better deal on something else. Friends of Dick would disagree, of course.

But suppose that you're right. The solution is still simple. Continue to gut every priority of our warmongering, mostly-evil Right until you reach $110 billion in savings. War all over the globe? Check! Expansion of the military-industrial complex (excuse me, "contracting"). Check! Tax cuts for the rich? Check! Big-business bailouts, and aid for companies that send jobs overseas? Check!

Of course, heads would roll if this were actually tried. No wealthy person has ever voluntarily walked away from a scam. Usually, they have to be killed. But take the concept as far and fast as you can because...

...the playing field in America is already tilted enough as it is. It's time for We the People to demand a little fairness. Which is a socialist sentiment, but working Americans are more socialist than perhaps they realize.

You can keep on watching Fox and pretending it'll be okay, the system is self-sustaining no matter how much folks siphon off the top. Or you can study history and realize that corruption, not climate change or invasion from without, is usually the principle cause of societal collapse. When we can no longer carry our war profiteers on our backs, America will change.

- MW

"The REAL cost of our lost war, as opposed to the BUDGETED cost, is one h--- of a lot higher than $24 billion per year."

You know that right now, Prescription Medicine and the rest of Health Care already costs over a trillion per year, right?

Adding that other 200 million will not help.

Its projected that by 2030, 70% of our budget will be devoteed to Social Security and Health Care.

I actually get to experience some benefit from a war in Iraq, because it got rid of Saddam. However, I will never see one dime from Social Security, Medicare, or the rest.

The war doesn't come close to one year of the rest.

So which do I prefer?

It should be obvious.

Hmm. You benefited personally from Saddam Hussein's beheading how, exactly?

Aha! You got to have a morbid revenge fantasy. Well, it is true that we all need one of those from time to time.

$.8 trillion to whack the Bush family nemesis and his two sons. Great job, Mr. President! And kudos for killing only about a million Iraqi civilians in the process. Not to mention getting just 25,000 of ours mangled or killed. Heckuva job. Who needs assassins, eh?

Now the bigger question, San, is this: why are you so happy to spend megabucks on killing foreigners, and so cheap when it comes to saving the lives of Americans here at home? What does this say about you as a human being?

That's not a personal attack. It's an important question. I'm willing to bet that you favor doing nothing at all about healthcare, right? All the health plans suck, so let's just do nothing. Let the 40 million uncovered Americans die young. What's it to you, long as you don't have to watch?

This is always the problem with folks on the political right. They are heartless.

But here is the fix. You can't fool all of the poor all of the time. One day, even here in the media-soaked Heartland, the cockroaches will wake up and start asking one another, "what has the Right ever done for us? Nothing but starve us, tell us it's our own d--- fault, send our jobs overseas, and send our kids off to get killed in God-forsaken places." And they will be correct.

And this will be the end of the Right for awhile, until the Cockroach People go back to sleep and forget again.

You are living through this reality, San. In the next election the cockroaches will trounce your tribe for its obvious bloodthirstiness and lack of human decency. Then a year or two later they'll move to shut down this war that drags on and on and benefits no one but Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and a handful of people who'd worship Satan himself if they could turn a buck at it.

Bummer? Maybe, but not for me - I'm a cockroach. Maybe not for you either, if you can adapt to the new paradigm as all good wage-earners must. The real world is just a big game of Follow The Leader anyway, and when he starts singing a new tune you probably will too.

Cheers,

- MW

"You benefited personally from Saddam Hussein's beheading how, exactly?"

The same way that I benefited knowing that Hitler was killed.

The same way that I benefited knowing that any mass murderer is dead.

But you love murderers and you love stealing other people's money.

I bet it gives you some kind of sick pleasure, doesn't it, to know that people are going to be losing a lot of their hard earned money to prop up some disgusting, old freaks who are unwilling to let their grasp on life go and make room for the next generation.

You want it to be a socialistic paradise where they are able to dominate everyone with groups like the AARP.

You love it.

You are disgusting.

Death is natural and overpopulation is a horrible thing.

"Regardless of what people claim, the Congress Budget puts the war at 2 billion a month. Thats only 24 billion."

You are just a fount of misinformation. The CBO report you're misquoting is talking about long-term costs, if the US manages to reduce its military footprint in Iraq down to about 55,000 troops. We'd then be expending about $2 billion a month. Don't take my word for it, see Cost of Presence in Iraq

But that's like a best-case scenario. What are we spending per month right now? Here's what the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "For DOD, war appropriations rose steeply in FY2007. DOD received $165.8 billion for war costs in FY2007 — about 40% more than the previous year... For the first half of FY2007, CRS estimates that DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay are running about $12 billion per month, well above the estimated $8.7 billion in FY2006." That's $10 billion per month for Iraq and $1.9 billion for Afganistan. Or 5 times more than San said we were spending per month. Again, don't take my word for it.

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Citing a website called "talking points memo" is not a way to show that you are correct.

Instead, I am citing the Senate's figures in which they were promoting a month ago to show how much the war was costing us. The number doesn't increase by 400% in a month.

So nice try.

Oh, and its nice how you try to skew the numbers even more by putting the soldiers base salary into the figure, where those expenses are paid whether they are in Iraq or not.

But we all know, you are just a bunch of liars.

And it still doesn't reach the TRILLIONS that are divied out in Medicaid and other Health benefits given to people who don't deserve them.

"Citing a website called "talking points memo" is not a way to show that you are correct."

You are unable to get even simple facts correct so why should anyone listen to you? The CBO report is available at the link I supplied. I accurately reported on what the CBO report says, you didn't.

"Instead, I am citing the Senate's figures in which they were promoting a month ago to show how much the war was costing us. The number doesn't increase by 400% in a month."

Right, sure. You do know that the CRS works for Congress don't you? And the figure you're pulling out of the air is more accurate than CRS? Right, sure. Let me know when you have an actual source for that. I mean one you can quote accurately.

"Works" for Congress means nothing.

Its either in the budget or not. You didn't provide the budget figures. You provided a website with an agenda.

Way to go. You should be proud that you can use biased groups to help you lie.

You are sick.

"Its either in the budget or not. You didn't provide the budget figures. You provided a website with an agenda."

You're stubborn and stupid. No wonder you admire Pres. Bush! The CBO report you cited, incorrectly, is available at the link I provided. Apparently you don't know how to link anymore than you know how to read. Unfortunately the Iraq war doesn't cost $2 billion a month as you claimed without any proof. It costs more and more.

"When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington."

Iraq war budget jumps for 2008

San... seek help. I mean it.

You sound like bad news waiting to happen to a random passerby. Someone who gets in your way perhaps, or just catches you on a bad day.

If you own any guns, please, turn them in to law enforcement. You can prevent murder, and no one else can if you don't. Turn to Jesus, if you're a Christian, and ask him to help calm the murdering rage in your heart.

Peace,

- MW

"You are sick." And earlier you replied to me, "you support murderers."

This is projection, my friend. Blaming others for what we have inside ourselves is a classic indicator of dysfunction.

Again, please seek help.

- MW