but not for long.

i remember when backing the troops was on everyone's minds, except the administration.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/05/25/loc_VAhealthcare.html 

Are you suggesting this administration is about rhetoric and not reality? Say wha?

Oh well, I guess they are consistent. After all, this is an entitlement program and they are 'bad' for conservatives. Bite the bullet, conservatives! This is the logical outcome of your basic values. If entitlement programs are bad, well, then so is the V.A. Or do you have a double-standard?

John

Rick: There you go again all the way to Cincinnati for that bull****, the key words being " might have to ". Bored, leaving now. JonR

JonR

what, cincinnati doesn't know anything.

bored is a sign of either disinterest or a short attention span

jdrabinski

hard to believe, isn't it, that bush would be all hat and no cattle.

i never thought of the va as an entitlement program, but i guess it is.

do you think i am a conservative and against entitlement programs? i'm not. what greater good can the government, representing the people, do then help the ones who can least help themselves.

Yo Rick: DISINTEREST. JonR

Rick,

No, I didn't think that about you. Not in the least. And I am not against entitlement programs...I have the radical idea that humans, by nature of being human, are entitled to food, shelter, education, and health care. Makes sense to me, but I am in the vast minority these days.

Ha ha ha...did I think you were a conservative? Never, my friend, never.

Sad that 'entitlement' is a bad word these days. It actually describes our sense of responsibility for compatriots and fellow citizens. Citizens of a wealthy nation seem entitled to minimum stuff. No one should go hungry, without education, without a home, without healthcare. Alas, this is a fading idea. We'll pay the price in history, however, as people look back at how we treat our poor and wonder what the hell was wrong with us.

John

Democratic campaigns usually start as close to Michigan as they can get, which would be Cincinatti.
Illinois will be next

Back to electoral math now 🙂

$250 opt-in with a $20 copay? How does that compare with YOUR benefits?

People should only be "entitled" to government hand-outs when they "Can Not" provide for themselves.

If they "will not" provide for themselves then they deserve NOTHING.
Sounds cold, doesn't it? But how long will the lazy SOB's choose to do nothing before they get off their entitlement ass and do something? Not long.

The single mom who doesn't work does not deserve the same standard of living as the single mom who works two jobs.

Government programs should be designed to get results. To get people back onto their feet. They should not become a way of life.

I know that I've strayed somewhat from the original post (VA benefits), but it grinds me when the liberal heart gets in the way of the liberal brain.

The Chinese learned over 2000 years ago that if you give a man a fish he'll only eat for a day. Why can't we put money into programs to teach fishing instead of how to milk one?

tailgater

i agree with you.

where do people like ken lay fit into the scheme of things. a big todo about some welfare mother cheating the government out of a few hunderd dollars a month. she shouldn't.

ken lay destroying people's pensions and walking away with enough money to buy a shower curtain for $6,000.

Kenneth should burn in hell.
No question about that.

FYI, I am for full employment. Problem is, if you read the theory and watch the practice of it, capitalism necessitates a substantial number of unemployed. That's why the stock market goes down when unemployment gets really low. If there are few unemployed people, labor costs go up. When there are more unemployed, labor is cheaper (people will work for any wage). That see-saw happens at around 4%. Which means millions.

So what do we do with those millions? Entitlements. If you want full employment (I do, so we share that), then you need another economic system. Thems the facts. Ask any economist.

Plus, single moms on welfare do work. They raise children, which is a hell of a lot of work to do alone and, when white middle-class women do it, we praise them to high heaven for their hard work and dedication. If we dole out that praise for middle-class white women, and they deserve it, then a little respect for single welfare moms is due. Their children matter just as much as middle-class white children do, you know. Poor children are poor by chance...we don't choose our parents or their economic, psychological, or social situation. When you **** on welfare moms, you **** on their children. People forget that.

You get tired of the liberal heart getting in the way of the liberal brain? (Why is the heart so insignificant, by the way?) That isn't the case with me. I make my living thinking and writing about these issues. Don't assume I only have vague feelings about this stuff. It is much more well thought through than you think. We need to think and feel at the same time. Without the heart, reason is empty.

John

FYI, I am for full employment. Problem is, if you read the theory and watch the practice of it, capitalism necessitates a substantial number of unemployed. That's why the stock market goes down when unemployment gets really low. If there are few unemployed people, labor costs go up. When there are more unemployed, labor is cheaper (people will work for any wage). That see-saw happens at around 4%. Which means millions.

So what do we do with those millions? Entitlements. If you want full employment (I do, so we share that), then you need another economic system. Thems the facts. Ask any economist.

Plus, single moms on welfare do work. They raise children, which is a hell of a lot of work to do alone and, when white middle-class women do it, we praise them to high heaven for their hard work and dedication. If we dole out that praise for middle-class white women, and they deserve it, then a little respect for single welfare moms is due. Their children matter just as much as middle-class white children do, you know. Poor children are poor by chance...we don't choose our parents or their economic, psychological, or social situation. When you **** on welfare moms, you **** on their children. People forget that.

You get tired of the liberal heart getting in the way of the liberal brain? (Why is the heart so insignificant, by the way?) That isn't the case with me. I make my living thinking and writing about these issues. Don't assume I only have vague feelings about this stuff. It is much more well thought through than you think. We need to think and feel at the same time. Without the heart, reason is empty and inhuman.

John

Thanks John, I never considered those points before. Very intersting views.

No prob, Robby. I thought it was so important I posted it twice! Ha ha.

John

John... for once I can agree with what you said there!!! Wow am I getting Soft?

no you just have some good points there..

Hog

Many of the Programs that the Bush Adm. has cut and put money's back into the system.. during the clinton years and the dems... adding programs and highering their own people to run them... BS Impact studies on programs that were created to see if this or that would work... give me a break... and the VA after the trickle down... really isn't what its cracked up to be... with better people then former enron exects. running things....
the moneys are always funded but in the end its the people handleing it at the end that gets it to work....


my 2 cents... and no Rick I didn't read the link you posted.. I keep up on the real **** with the VA from sites sent to me at work....

Hog

usahog

my sites are real just different then yours.

it's my job to post them.

you have no obligations to read them. (i'm going to sneak in a pro-bush site one of these days, and you'll miss it)