Hopenchange™

[Haggis@wk]

It's all well and good to support such measures IF we have the money, but $30 BILLION can certainly be put to use here. We simply can't afford it.

Obama's just committed us to more than a thousand billion dollars of debt this year, I'd have to say that 30BIL spread out over 10 or so years seems kinda like chump change.

[jamiebk]

It's all well and good to support such measures IF we have the money, but $30 BILLION can certainly be put to use here. We simply can't afford it.

Obama's just committed us to more than a thousand billion dollars of debt this year, I'd have to say that 30BIL spread out over 10 or so years seems kinda like chump change.

It's 3% of the number you quote and not chump change. When papa isn't making as much take home pay as he used to, then the family has to cut back on expenses. No more dinners out, no more movies, no more donations to causes. I see it as just that. Quite frankly, I am surprised that you and your right wingy friends would embrace such frivolous spending when we can't afford it. It does nothing to stimulate OUR economy. We must focus on the home front. Cutting has to start somewhere. Progams like sending money to Africa are a place to start.

[Shapley]

Progams like sending money to Africa are a place to start.

All we're saying is that President Bush, who supposedly doesn't care about black people, championed a cause that is credited with saving the lives of millions of black people in Africa. Meanwhile, the caring and compassionate Democrats can find millions to spend to buy junk cars in order to convince Americans to buy new ones from the car companies the government found the money to buy, yet they are willing to let the funding for the programme, and the people it serves, die. I find it interesting that the best defense you can sum up for this is that President Bush didn't really mean it, anyway.

I continue to be puzzled by the definition of 'compassion'...

[jamiebk]

I continue to be puzzled by the definition of 'compassion'...

As do I when you start carping about health care coverage not being available for everyone

[Shapley]

Health care for everyone, as I've noted, is not the same as health coverage for everyone. I've long maintained that we provide health care for the poor and the indigent, which should meet anyone's defintion of compassion. Why that need has now changed to providing health care for everyone, and now to providing health coverage for everyone, puzzles me.

My definition of compassion is simple:

You and I are walking down the road and see a beggar. If I reach into my pocket and give him $5, that is compassion. If I reach into your pocket and give him $5, that is theft.

You can't legislate, regulate, or mandate compassion, it flows from the heart, not from government fiat.

But then, it's not we conservatives that issue demands for compassion. Giving people the freedom to provide for themselves is, IMHO, more compassionate than providing for them by taking away their freedom.

[Shapley]

White House Blog Asks People To Report 'Fishy' E-Mails To Them.

I assume this refers to those e-mails questioning Mr. Obama's Citizenship (which even most conservative websites are calling a 'dead issue'). The primary focus, however, seems to be on e-mails encouraging opposition to health coverge refrom proposals. Apparently, they want to see what kind of 'chatter' there is out there so they can tailor their sales pitch accordingly.

They've been blaming the dissidents at local town hall meetings on an 'organized Republican campaign' to derail the proposal. This, somehow, is deemed to be less moral than the organized Democrat campaign that was used to derail President Bush' proposals, such as Social Security Reform and Reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This makes me wonder if the recent spam attacks aren't orchestrated by White House supporters, since Haggis and I were winning the health coverage debate so handily...