It is not unfair to compare the two because their actions are a statement of fact. The President is willing to spend a–seemingly–unlimited amount on a war that is unjust, unqualified, and un-ending, and yet, he objects to spending more money on keeping children in our country safe and healthy. I’m not going to get into the specific reasons why because that’s a whole other post, but I think you can imagine.

The politicians are primarily concerned about getting re-elected. If they’re wise, they won’t ignore those who elected them in the first place.

Do you have a month? I could let you in on a few of the secrets about interest groups, propaganda, and splitting of votes in elections.

Well, they do hesitate now, it’s just the moron Bush basically uses his presidential powers to get what he wants done, without Congressional support.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Look at the immigration bill, for instance. Bush supported it, but very few Americans did, and so it was shot down after an intense grassroots movement. I don’t know a whole lot about this particular bill, but I know that a lot of people are opposed to government health insurance in general, for several reasons, such as the tax hike such a program would require and the fact that other government-run programs such as the public schools and social security are in such bad shape.

Now, believe me, I’m not particularly fond of Bush. In fact, I’m pretty ticked at him for telling the people who campaigned for him that they don’t want what’s best for America. But I think the Bush conspiracy theories are a little silly. The President has quite a bit of influence, but so do the people. The politicians are primarily concerned about getting re-elected. If they’re wise, they won’t ignore those who elected them in the first place.

As for spending on Iraq vs spending on healthcare, I don’t believe that’s a just comparison. Whether we like it or not, the government’s main jobs are providing for the common defense and administering justice in order to protect law-abiding citizens. Now, we may believe that invading Iraq was not necessary to protect our country. We may argue that the government should also provide for the common welfare (which is leaning towards socialism). But that doesn’t change the government’s role as it’s currently defined, or change the fact that our leaders apparently decided invading Iraq was necessary. So until the primary purpose of our government is modified, I think it’s unfair to compare the cost of military operations to the projected cost of government healthcare of any kind.

That’s my two cents, anyway.

They don’t hesitate making changes when it comes to more international matters like… say waging war on others.

Maybe 4 years ago, but this isn’t really true now. Put simply, if Bush wanted to wage war with another country, he would not have much of any support in either party.

For things like with Darfur, they are actually taking the effort to get UN support, and taking action is necessary, people are being killed, it’s worse than with Hussein, well, at the time of the Iraq War at least.

It seems to be working seeing how more people seem to care about the war in Iraq than they do about health insurance.

People are angry, very angry and scared. They want their sons and daughters to stop dying and come home.