Conservative Senators Embrace Putting Off Health Care For Americans In Favor Of Escalation In Afghanistan
Conservative Senators Embrace Putting Off Health Care For Americans In Favor Of Escalation In Afghanistan
The policy debate in Washington is currently focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care reform carry significant price tags — roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)
When it comes to these two debates, hawkish senators have laid out their priorities. They are more than willing to fund a risky troop surge that is increasingly opposed by both Americans and Afghans, yet remain stalwart opponents of health care reform that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they lack access to health care.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demonstrated this preference for war over health care and other essential domestic priorities during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday. He heartily endorsed “a new surge of forces” in Afghanistan while dismissing a war surtax proposed by Rep. David Obey (D-WI). Graham suggested that we “trim up” the health care bill to pay for the war, prompting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remark that Graham and other senate hawks have a “poor set of priorities”:
GRAHAM: We’ll be evaluated by some pretty tough characters in the world by how we handle Afghanistan. … We’re gonna have the troops in Afghanistan to win the conflict. [...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does [Obey] have a point [about the war surtax]? If we’re going to fight a war, shouldn’t the American people pay for it?
GRAHAM: Well, I’d like to have an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending…to pay for the war. … Can we trim up the health care bill and other big ticket items to pay for a war that we can’t afford to lose? [...]
SANDERS: What Senator Graham is now saying as I understand it is, hey we can cut back on education, so middle class families can’t afford to send their families to college. We don’t have to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have to invest in sustainable energy, so we stop importing $350 billion a year in foreign oil. Let’s just spend more money in Afghanistan while Europe and the people of China and the people of Russia watch us do that work. I think that is a very poor set of national priorities.
Watch it:
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) echoed similar sentiments during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” yesterday. He suggested to host John King that health care legislation should be delayed until next year to focus on Afghanistan, saying, “The war is terribly important. … So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change away and talk now about the essentials, war and money.”
Another Senate conservative, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), also denounced the idea of Obey’s war tax to pay for an escalation in Afghanistan. While telling a Fox News host that “there’s no bigger deficit hawk in Congress” than him, he suggested “cutting spending in other parts of the budget” rather than raising taxes, signaling that he, too, sees war as a greater priority than domestic counter-cyclical spending in this recessed economy.
As the number of Americans on food stamps rises to an all-time high, the unemployment rate hits double-digits, and Americans continue to perish due to lack of health coverage, how can these senators justify draining funding from crucial domestic programs to pay for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Suprise, suprise. These SOBs will do anything to kill reform. They are immoral blood suckers who will let the uninsured and sick die needlessly so their Corporate buddies can make more profit. Dirt-bags.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:45 amAs any despot knows, it’s far easier to kill people than to try and heal them….
November 30th, 2009 at 10:46 amAmerica: A nation consumed by Gluttonous Greed. America: The emergent fount of Envy, the harbor of an intellectual Sloth voluminous enough to demand the misplaced Pride of patriotic Wrath sufficient to encourage and enshrine the eternal Lust for imperial power. America: The absolute personification of Dante’s Seven Deadly Sins. America: R.I.P.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:46 amMurdering foreigners while letting more Americans die without health coverage….this only makes sense to teabagging Anti-American kkkonservatives.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:47 amThe republicans would apparently like to “beat plowshares into guns”. Unbelievable! No wonder we can never achieve bipartisan agreement on anything. The republicans are entirely disconnected from reality and the vast majority of Americans.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:48 amI don’t quite understand how conservatives don’t see health care of United States’ citizens not to be an issue of National Security.
Why is there always enough money for war and killing but never enough money to help people?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:50 amSo, basically, Republicans want us to allow Americans to certainly die due to lack of healthcare so that we don’t risk losing American lives in a terrorist attack stemming from Afghanistan.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:51 amOf course. More dead people & less healthy people equals a good day at the office for the modern Republican Party and Conservative movement.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am@1. Don’t forget, their corporate buddies helped them get to where they are.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:54 amOf course Sen. Graham believes that we should cut spending to pay for the continued fiasco in Afghanistan, but he wont say what should be cut.
So come on Republicans. Run on it. Run on cutting Social Security, or Medicare, or schools, etc. and see what happens.
Why can’t you just ask the wealthiest among to pay up as they should.
Those who disproportionately benefit, must disproportionately pay in.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:54 amSure. And I’d like to see if I can pay for a new truck with cutting spending. Maybe I won’t buy groceries and then tell the car dealer that I’m cutting spending, would that satisfy him for the money I owe him?
“Cutting spending” does not generate income, Senator.
Clearly, the Republican Party is no longer even pretending to care about anything but wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:55 amGOP Mantra:
TAX CUTS
MORE WARS
HOARD ALL YOU CAN, SCREW EVERYONE ELSE
America: land of opportunity to rape and pillage in the name of “freeedumb”.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:56 amYeah! Damned right!! Every real, honest-to-goodness patriotic teabagging Amurkin knows that spending gazillions of dollars to kill brown people on the other side of the frikkin’ world is a whole hell of a lot more important than getting American citizens decent, affordable health care!!!!!
November 30th, 2009 at 10:56 amNOW the Afghanistan war is “terribly important” ?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:57 amThese Senators say what their corporate masters pay them to say.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 amWell, Lindsay Graham’s carrer may soon be over. His own Party is going after him. Pretty soon they will put up a ‘Tea-Bagger’ to challenge him. Will he prevail? Who knows, but it will be interesting to see.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 amomg. So now we have made the leap to just saying it straight out: we can’t afford health care.. we have wars to fight! Get your priorities straight!
I mean.. here we are – Trading life for our people – for Death for their people. Killing our own and killing THEIR own as well.. It’s a policy of death – simple as that.. death to us and death to them…
I almost liked the Republicans better when they lied to us.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:59 amThe Republicans are practical people. They know that, if the Afghan war continues for another year, there will be fewer people signing up for insurance because more will die in the combat zone.
If I should die in the combat zone,
November 30th, 2009 at 11:02 amBox me up and ship me home.
Pin my medals on my chest,
Tell my Momma I did my best.
And I won’t need any of that budget busting insurance because a coffin is a one time expense.
Frugalchariot @ 3… I’m sorry that I cannot agree with your cynical assessment of America. Even with all of it’s problems, America is still a pretty great place to live.
There are good people who have dedicated their lives to making America better every day. These are the people to be celebrated, not the conservatives that try to hold us back from progress and from doing the right thing.
Right now, we need a leader to save capitalism from itself, much like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt did. Whether Obama is that leader, I’m not sure, but we can look towards statesmen like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich and Debbie Stabenow and a host of others as models of people to emulate.
The America that I live in always strives for that “More Perfect Union” described (and hoped for) in the Constitution. It’s quite a different place than the America that you describe.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:03 amEither I’m getting senile or the rest of the world is suffering from some kind of selective amnesia. Let me see if I have my general recollection of events calibrated properly:
Even though we found the Taliban loathesome, we didn’t see taking them down as our fight. However, once we were attacked on 9/11, we had an understandable objective — get Osama bin Laden and his band of Al Qaeda terrorists, and bring them to justice.
Because the Taliban shielded the people we were after, we went after them. As far as I know, this has been the only official reason for warring against the Taliban.
Fast forward eight years. The Taliban has risen again. Osama bin Laden hasn’t been caught.
If we ramp up our fight there, what’s our objective? To find and capture OBL? Fine — but let’s be honest about that. And let’s have a plan for it.
Or is it to bring down the Taliban again? If so — why? And “because they’re not nice people” isn’t a good enough reason.
If the hawks really want to sell this war, they’re going to have to come up with some specific reasons for it. Generalities such “a war that we can’t afford to lose” will only convince the kool-aid drinkers who don’t require logic.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:03 amSen. Linseed GrahamCracker has no credibility until he steps out of the closet he lives in.
Bayh is a DINO traitor bastard!
And Lugar is a moron!
November 30th, 2009 at 11:04 amthis is news how?
hell, they’re all for putting off health care for the guys RETURNING from the wars these chickenhawks LOVE to send others off to fight…
November 30th, 2009 at 11:04 amTypical. It’s not illogical to focus efforts on a war we’ve been fighting for 8 years. The problem is that most of these senators are devoid of logic and simply use Afghanistan (a war they and the past administration have, by and large, ignored) as an excuse to delay and kill healthcare reform.
Lugar disappoints me. He should know better than to play these kinds of games. Hell, he is one of the few honest, stable, and rational Republicans in Congress.
Also, Dave Obey (D-WI)
November 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am(It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)
it would also cut the profits of the military industrial complex…
and so…
November 30th, 2009 at 11:07 amThanks, fixed it.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:07 amHow many of the enemy do US soldiers in Afghanistan kill every day, “to keep America safe”? 5? 10? 20?
How many Americans die each day for lack of affordable health insurance? 122, isn’t it?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:07 amCongresscritters should mimic NASCAR and wear sponsor badges & logos on their clothing.
Any ‘corporate sponsors’ contributing over a $100,000.00 a year would get a 3″X5″ colored logo on that congress person’s clothing.
Contributions in excess of a $1,000,000.00 a year would get a 12″X15″ embroidered message on the congresscritter’s back.
This would allow voters to see up front (and back) who is ‘buying’ this particular elected official.
Joe Lieberman would look like he’s wearing Joseph’s coat of many colors…kind of like a walking neon rainbow.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:09 ammissmolly says:
If we ramp up our fight there, what’s our objective? To find and capture OBL? Fine — but let’s be honest about that. And let’s have a plan for it.
In which case of course, we’re in the wrong country, AGAIN!
November 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am#20 missmolly
That’s the ‘official story’.. yes.
but.. everyone knows it’s about oil.
The Mujahideen, whom we had a hand in creating, had deals with us that fell through.. deals for Saudi oil.
The terrorists were our creation.. the enmity between them and us.. our creation. The specifics of which are only known to those who were involved at the highest levels – but what is known.. it was all us – and all about control of Saudi oil to keep the war machine rumbling.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:19 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Would someone remind me WHY we are at war with Afghanistan? Seriously, after 9/11 we supposedly went after Bin Laden but under George Bush Bin Laden “didn’t matter”.
So why are we there?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:21 amGRAHAM: “We’re gonna have the troops in Afghanistan to win the conflict.”
Hey Lynsie, What’s a “win” in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is the graveyard of foreign armies and has been so for hundreds and hundreds of years. What make you even think we can win after the Brits, the Soviets and hell even Genghis Khan couldn’t “win”?
Bring our troops home NOW!
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” George Santayana
November 30th, 2009 at 11:25 amWhy is it we always have the money to kill people halfway around the world, but we never have the money to care for Americans here at home?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am.
There’s a killin’ to be had at makin’ war…
.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amA new MIT economist report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today’s typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.
So, If the bill does what it says it will do, the only loser will be the insurance companies and the Repubs can’t have that… much better to distract themselves with the Afghanistan war…a war they couldn’t be bothered with fighting appropriately in 2002 — before the Iraq war even started. Boggles the mind.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amNotice how not one member of the republican party is concerned about the price tag of the two wars or how we will pay for them yet they are concerned over the price tag for health care reform.
These idiots would rather continue to throw billions of dollars and more US soldiers lives away in the lost cause called Afghanistan instead of bringing the troops home, ending the outrageous spending of two failed wars, rebuilding our own country’s infrastructure.
Mean while countries like China and Russia continue to grow and get stronger and no doubt look on with glee as the might USA gets weaker and in more debt.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amTaosJohn says:
————————————————————–
I’m all for these conservative idiots. Anything that slows down this awful bill is okay with me.
============================================================
You believing the status quo is better than baby steps reform makes you one of the wingnuts. Congrats!
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amTax republicans to pay for the war. Simple solution.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:29 amIt’s really quite simple — delaying healthcare reform while encouraging increased war spending lets the repukes serve their two primary masters at once, the health insurance industry and the defense industry. It’s a twofer that sends them into a perpetual orgasmic frenzy…
November 30th, 2009 at 11:34 amTricked By The Gods says:
Notice how not one member of the republican party is concerned about the price tag of the two wars or how we will pay for them yet they are concerned over the price tag for health care reform.
did i hear $1m per troop/soldier per (what – day, week, year?)?
health care has to be a LOT cheaper than that…
November 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am10. Mr.Bungle says:
Of course Sen. Graham believes that we should cut spending to pay for the continued fiasco in Afghanistan, but he wont say what should be cut.
I’d like to suggest we cut the budget for the Department of War by 10%. Projected to be 9 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. A 10% cut would amount to 900 Billion dollars a year which would equal the cost for Universal Single Payer for ALL Americans without raising taxes. I’m sure the “compassionate conservatives” out there would agree.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:36 am“This is a war that must be won,” says Sen. Graham. But what is the definition of “winning” in Afghanistan? No public official has ever defined that to my satisfaction. Is it capturing Osama bin Laden, the original pretext for invasion? By all accounts, bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan! I think Obama should shock and surprise the American public by declaring the reason for our being there no longer exists and that he intends to bring all the troops home. But I know that will never happen. What is Obama’s exit strategy? I will be listening tomorrow. I also wonder how we will pay for the expected surge.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:37 amaquarius2 says: Would someone remind me WHY we are at war with Afghanistan?
Afghanistan justified and enabled the invasion of Iraq and it’s occupation, by virtue of the “authorization to use force in “the Global War on Terror”.
Afghanistan was a bit like Hitler’s annexation of Austria.
Once he could get away with that, he knew he could get away with his larger ambitions.
The US wanted control of an oil-rich nation (puppet government)and through occupation (military bases)to threaten the entire region, thus influencing most of the world’s oil supply and the market, for the next 50 years.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:39 amAt the same time corporate America would have a completely unregulated tax haven financed by US tax dollars, and thus have even greater control over US politics and policies as a result.
And then the Republicans will continue to label themselves the “pro-life” party while they’re obviously pro-death.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:40 amAnd just like most teabaggers your you’re on Medicare getting your fat Social Security check.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:41 amFrom the Kerry sponsored Senate report on CIA’s failure to capture/kill Bin Laden:
The report says some villagers who were paid to help in the fight were given global positioning system devices and told to push a button wherever they saw fighters or arms caches. The coordinates were then sent to American military spotters to call in airstrikes.
Gives a whole new meaning to “bombing” someone’s inbox.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:42 am#36 – Tricked By The Gods says:
——————————————————-
“Mean while countries like China and Russia continue to grow and get stronger and no doubt look on with glee as the might USA gets weaker and in more debt.”
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Call it what it is: Republican Debt.
The self-proclaimed “fiscal conservative” Republicans are the ones who’ve doubled the national debt in just 8 years. They rode into power on the false-myth that lower taxes for millionairs and corporations mysteriously help the economy. The Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.
Now, a Democratic President and Congress are going to have to fix the problems that the Republicans created. Again. And these Republicans will never remember that it was them that caused the last two recessions.
It’s up to the American people to remind the Republicans of their failed fiscal policies and hold them accountable.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:42 amIt’s been substantiated that Rumsfeld chickened out on taking OBL in Tora Bora when he had the chance.
Now they’re giving Rummy medals for his ‘outstanding work’. He probably still has a desk at the Pentagon, for God’s sake.
Why is the Bush Crime Family’s failure now a ‘war of necessity’?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:43 amaquarius2 says: Would someone remind me WHY we are at war with Afghanistan?
sorry, I should add….
Afghanistan now needs its own justification as a continued distraction from the Iraq debacle.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 amAfghanistan needs to be exited AFTER the Iraq exit for political face-saving, AND it serves the other purpose of bleeding the Obama administration.
The real problem is all those in congress and senate all have stock in all those defense contractors, makeing big money for themselfs keeping the wars going they keep makeing big money, they get double money when they take bribes from contractors like health care does to republicans then add stocks look at all the profts they make, both side are millonares after 2 or 3 years in office, makes me sick all are troops die for those ass—- can make money.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am#44 – Shayne says:
————————————————————-
“And then the Republicans will continue to label themselves the “pro-life” party while they’re obviously pro-death.”
November 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
More accurate to call them “pro-birth/pro-death”.
They don’t care at all about the child after it’s passed the birth canal, and they don’t want to etend health-care coverage to the child at any point. They only want the embryo to be “protected” while it’s in the womb. Other than those 9 months, the self-described “pro-life” party doesn’t care at all.
Not one single thought for the child after birth, and actively work to deny health coverage for the child at any point after birth.
Pro-birth/pro-death. The truth will set them free, but first it’s gonna tick them off!
November 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am5th Estate
Thank you! I was being sarcastic in asking the question BUT I really, really like your reply. Sums it up very nicely.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:48 amWill Sentor Graham be going to Afghanistan to buy any rugs for $5.00? He’s such a pre-existing condition
November 30th, 2009 at 11:49 amZimzone says:
It’s been substantiated that Rumsfeld chickened out on taking OBL in Tora Bora when he had the chance.
================================================================
There are some like NY congressman Maurice Hinchey who believe that Rumsfeld didn’t go after OBL when his location was pin pointed in Tora Bora because the Bush administration realized that if we were to kill or capture OBL the Bush administration would of had a tougher time selling a second war in Iraq to the American public.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amI don’t know Democratic Soldier, they’d fight like crazy to keep a working pregnant woman from getting prenatal care. They’re pro-birth in name only. They’re just afraid that tax dollars may at some time pay for abortions because of the money not the fetuses.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:59 amGRAHAM: Well, I’d like to have an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending…to pay for the war. … Can we trim up the health care bill and other big ticket items to pay for a war that we can’t afford to lose?
Hey Lindsay, how about fu(k the war? Bring the troops home, slash 15% from the Pentagon’s bloated budget and use the savings to fund single payer universal healthcare coverage. An honest fiscal hawk would support this as a win/win. Keeping the largest number of Americans alive should be the rally cry of the “right to lifers”. Too bad there is no honesty to fiscal conservatism and the “right to life” ends at birth for the righties.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pmWell, not just conservatives. Not by a long shot. Lots of Democrats and Republicans in Washington who run the government for Wall Street take tax dollars from folks like us to buy the best health care coverage around; and then pocket hundreds of millions of dollars from the military industrial complex to pay for their political careers along the way.
But you don’t hear it framed this way much in the mainstream media do you.
Gee, and it’s all so obvious too.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pmConservatives seem to prefer death over life, but they just won’t die fast enough.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pmWe are not at war in Afghanistan (or Iraq), we invaded and are attempting to occupy them. Each and every soldier there, from private to general, is little more than a hit man for the corporate fascists who profit from the slaughter.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pmI just have one question: What’s more important to our president, spending money on war or spending money on the health of Americans?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pmDoes anyone in their right mind think they really mean this (rather than a convenient excuse) ?
Before you answer yes, note that I said “in their right mind.”
November 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pmI like Bernie Sanders so much that I will have to donate something to his next election. He is saying what the Dems should be saying in the MSM to get public opinion for their programs. Portraying the Republicans as being callous and indifferent will go a long way toward bring public opinion around on various issues. Even Frank Luntz could not spin these statements from Graham, et al.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pmIf there were no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the conservatives (R’s and D’s) would come up with another 101 excellent reasons why we cannot do healthcare reform now—-because they are dependent on the money from these corporations to win the next campaign (I’m looking at you, Joe Lieberman).
If you are only concerned with money and don’t care about millions of Americans suffering from lack of healthcare, then single-payer universal coverage is the way to go because it saves $350 billion in paperwork alone every year!
November 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pmNoone ever says “raise taxes on corporations”! Heck, over 60% of American companies pay nothing at all. Cut out all the loopholes. Don’t allow headquartering on a tiny island in the Caribbean. Have strong penalties for moving plants to Mexico, for example. Raise tariffs. Put a tax on Wall Street short-term speculation. Cut weapons purchasing. Don’t have 750 bases in 177 countries. Politicians like Sanders, Kucinich, and Nader could balance the budget.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:29 pmrepugniscum can’t walk and chew gum.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pmJust an opportunity for the Senate to dither…eh, I mean deliberate on something instead of taking action.
This is a big issue, but there really is nothing substanative that the Senate is going to take, so spare us the platitudes.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pmSo Conservatives back in 2003 for the third Bush tax cut embraced putting that one off because of the Iraq war, right?
No? You mean conservatives are not grade-A hypocrites who only care about enriching the rich even more?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pmI’m not worried about terrorists from Afganistan or Iraq.
The terrorists that scare me are members of Congress who outsource our jobs to China, cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes on the poor, cut our Medicare and Social Security benefits, give trillion dollar bailouts to Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, and order our troops to torture and kill defenseless men, women, and children all over the world.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pmIt’s even worse…They want cheap labor…
Me thinks this is not what “pro-life” is supposed to be all about…
November 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pmOnce upon a time there was another country that over-invested in delusional dreams of war and conquest. They pumped more money than they had into their military and used it to influence how other countries were run. Another great country helped fund the bad guys, I mean freedom fighters, in one of the countries they were at war with because they believed that if said country shot its economic wad there, the evil empire would collapse.
Whatever happened to the Soviet Union?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pmMore money for the military.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pmListen to Dennis Kucinich debate Fox @nalyst Rick “ManOnDog” Santorum on the escalation in Iraq on Fox Snooze. Rick keeps putting talking points in the mouth of Dennis when he never said them.
http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2844&Itemid=2
November 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm71…if we cut our budget in half, we would have more money to invest in our schools and our infrastructure and universal health care. Yet pro-life conservatives in the greatest irony ever known prefer to have expensive toys in the military to blow things up and wreck havoc. Can you conservatives ever get past your manliness issues and think rationally that perhaps the military doesn’t need all that much money?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:00 pmSo Republicans want to ration health care to pay for a war???
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am