Taxes, health care and national defense...how to sort out which gets paid for first? How do libs decide?

In my opinion, health care is unnecessary if you are dead, so national defense should come first. I keep reading from liberals that since we fund a war, we should instead fund health care for all Americans. How do libs set their spending priorities?

Taxes, health care and national defense...how to sort out which gets paid for first? How do libs decide?
The liberals have already decided. It's health care and to pay for it, it's taxes. They could care less whether we are dead or not as long as they get what they want and it's not really what they want but rather what their rich leaders want and have brainwashed them into believing.
Reply:National defense is great unless it becomes a national offense geared towards military spending interests pursuing morally bankrupt policies and not even keeping their eye on the ball. Taxes seem wasted when they go towards funding a completly messed up war policy. Iraq was not a threat to us and was hardly worth the cost. I know it is easy for conservatives to manufacture reality to fit their delusional minds, but we at home really do come first. Its just a really poor argument to suggest that if we were to make health care a priority that we would have no defense. I am glad this is the reality and that people are most likely to do something about this despite the misguided fantasies of internet trolls.
Reply:Congress is in charge of the money and annually creates the government's budget. So most of the power is in the hands of Congress. They decide the budget on an annual basis and can also pay for things on a "now and then" basis as well. That's why you hear on the news things like, "President Bush asked Congress for $80 billion more for the war." The President asks and Congress approves (or disapproves).





I think the point people try to make with the war/health care thing is that the Iraq War is costing over $1 billion per week. We've spent $458 BILLION so far and add at least one billion every week. And I think everyone in both parties can agree that money would have been better spent elsewhere. Whether it's health care, military spending somewhere else, infrastructure, college grants, whatever. So with a better person in charge maybe the country won't make huge, expensive mistakes like this again and our budget will be spent more wisely. It's not an either/or. Like we can either afford the military or health care. It's about making smart decisions so we can do both.
Reply:they'll vote for the one that they can skim the most money off of and line their own pockets so it really doesn't matter now does it since you have no say in what they do... sounds more like socialism than capitalism now doesn't it..
Reply:There is no real majority in the House or the Senate. So, politically correct, this question should be addressed to both the Dems and Reps and a couple of Independents.





Benchmarks come from all of them, they play "Give me this and I will give you that" in our government, they don't give a damn if any of these issues are resolved.





Rodham is a liar on all of her issues, and we don't have anything coming except a ton of excuses if you and others vote for her. Vote for anyone except Rodham, in the USA.
Reply:whichever special interest group screams the loudest, that's where they throw money.








until the next special interest group starts screaming . . .
Reply:Defense comes first and that includes out boarders! We must stop the flood of illegals and get rid of the ones we have. Otherwise, health care will continue to have problems (e.g., ERs closing) and our taxes will continue to go thorough the roof!





Hillary is wrong on health care - Hillary care will destroy our system. She is wrong about taxes - we already pay too much.





All of the Democrats are wrong about security since they are pro-amnesty. I think their priority is to raise taxes so they can spend even more on things that are wrong.
Reply:Personally, if we could fund the goverment without the need for involuntary taxes, everyone could be better off.
Reply:The problem with your statement is that you seem to equate national defense with the billions we're spending in Iraq. Our invasion, destruction, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq is not national defense and yes instead of building hospitals and schools that we probably destroyed in this process, we could be spending that money on health care. Congress asked for 35 billion to extend health care coverage for children while we have spent over 2 trillion dollars in Iraq. Certainly, national defense is a priority, probably first, but the Dept of Homeland Security and the Dept of Defense has never been short on cash...