Speak Out: Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

Replies (9)

• money creating jobs here vs money wasted in another country killing americans.

  hmmm.

  -- Posted by futile_rant on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 10:39 AM

• All in the name of the poor poor. An obscene argument in support of the indefensible seisure and squandering of the producer's wealth.

  -- Posted by voyager on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM

• Wiffle: One simple question. No spin answers, please. Pick one of these scenarios. Money spent on a war with a country that did absolutely nothing to us or that same amount spent to help people in our country that truly need it. I said truly need it. Please pick one answer only with no spin or be prepared to be waterboarded. "Water boarding is not torture" by Dick Cheney and Mr waterboard defender himself, Sean Insanity.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 11:32 AM

• "You posted a column from March 9, 2008 over a year and a half ago."

  I must have missed it when we got the $2 trillion rebate check.

  I'll say it again: you are criticizing Obama for money that he hasn't actually spent, while ignoring substantial, tangible funds already wasted.

  -- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 11:40 AM

• The issue all of you one track limited minds refused to face and answer:

  Why spend money on either one?

  -- Posted by voyager on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 12:41 PM

• Yikes, voyager ... That is good! Be interesting to see the answers to the question ... or not ... same old reasons/excuses, I'm betting.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 1:42 PM

• We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs. ~ Will Rogers

  -- Posted by one4kids on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 11:51 AM

  Could that be because in too many cases the better candidates aren't even running?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM

• Nr. Widdle,

  Point awarded.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 5:19 PM

• one4kids ... Very good post at 7:55 PM ... And yes, the Will Rogers quote.

  Perhaps the 'best candidates' don't run because they are not party loyalists ... therefore, they do not have the financial backing, nor the support, of their parties? A campaign consisting of 100% honesty and common sense, with the good of the entire country at heart rather than 'special interest groups,' just wouldn't succeed, would it?

  Remember last winter, when posters on SO were determining who among the posters would be better for federal government positions than ...?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 7:02 PM