We have never disagreed on this point, col, we just disagree on HOW it needs to be done. I believe by reducing spending, you believe by raising taxes.

The Congress has decided on any spending the only issue is paying for what Congress has agreed to spend. For example - When Congress allowed Bush to Invade Iraq they had a responsibility to increase taxes to pay for that war just like we have done in the past.

HOWEVER, you invited Danielost to leave the country for daring to say he didn't want the government involved in his daily life.

What I said is that is Danielost did not want the U.S. Government to as he put it be involved in his life, then I suggested he find some place else to live where the government would not be involved.

i said daily life.

The government is not involved in our daily life to any real extent.

then you can not compare government chooses with everyday life chooses that people make.

Actually, yes, they are.

The government has dictated what is and is not appropriate parenting. If you do not parent to the government's narrowly defined view, they will remove your children from you.

The government dictates the education that our children are taught in schools. If schools do not teach to government mandated norms, they will be shut down.

Local governments regulate smoking in public in many jurisdictions, and soon wish to regulate smoking in your own home.

The government attempts to regulate the health of your children. If you do not vaccinate, and do not provide satisfactory cause to the government for not doing so, your children will be taken from you.

If your children are over or under certain weight ranges and you do not work to control it, they will be taken from you.

If your child is sick and you do not use a government endorsed medical treatment, your child will be taken from you.

The government is VERY involved in our daily life, Col, and people like you only wish them to become MORE so!

Ever heard of breastmilk?

NO baby NEEDS formula. That's the LAST thing the gov't should be forcing taxpayers to cover.

there are a few exceptions here.


my sisters husbands family including their own kids are allergic to iron. ie they cannot drink milk or breast milk. i do not know if they grow out of this or not.


but as i said this is a rare exceptions.

My wife tells me that 3-4% of Moms are physically unable to breastfeed.



On the other side of the coin, we would rather have the woman on welfare feeding her baby formula than watered down milk, or any other substandard food. Even if the baby isn't starving to DEATH, it could cause intestinal problems down the road, which would mean more taxpayer money to health care welfare instead of food welfare.

How did babies survive before formula was invented?

And Jythier, I think your wife's 3-4% of women is a high figure. There may be reasons why breastfeeding is difficult or inadvisable (breast reduction, chemotherapy, etc), but literally and naturally absolutely physically incapable? Only a minuscule number of women fit that description.

Whole milk is not a substitute for formula. Formula can hardly be considered a substitute for breast milk. But this is getting way, way off topic now.

My apologies.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 27, 2007 The government is not involved in our daily life to any real extent. then you can not compare government chooses with everyday life chooses that people make.

The claim by conservatives is that individuals not the government can make better choices when it comes to spending. That may be true about SOME choices for the individual but it is not true for the choices that must be made for the many items I included in this Blog. People who claim individuals make better choices want to cut taxes and turn that money over to individuals. If we do that choices for our security, health, and the operation of the various agencies that make our society function would not be made. Many on this Blog site never fail to tell us how bad the individual choices people make are and blame people for being POOR because of bad choices. On one hand they argue individuals make better spending choices then the government and in the next breath they tell us that those individual choices are poor.

This is all just more excuses to shift wealth to those with the money which is just what the policies of the past 7 years have done! We do need to insist that Government mage better choices but we also need to insure that when Congress establishes the spending that that spending if fully funded with taxes.

Reply By: Texas WahinePosted: Thursday, December 27, 2007How did babies survive before formula was invented?

Actually the infant death rate in past years was much higher. Today the cost to live and the breakdown of the family and extended families has made providing for essentials more of a problem for the poor and low middle income families! Making believe there is not a need to help some in our society is just creating another problem. To argue we should cut help to those in need to protect tax cuts for the wealthy is pure GREED!!!!!

The problem is and has been that our goverment inevitably spends more than it takes in and they need to take steps to stop spending what they don't have.

That is not correct. What is needed is what Congress agrees to spend. That may not agree with every person but when the majority of Congress sets the spending levels that is WHAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING! Then we need to PAY for 100% of what Congress has agreed to spend! This second step is WHY we have a deficit not because we are spending TOO MUCH.

Wrong. That is how we get pork!

For someone clamoring for a balanced budget, you sure go about it in an unusual manner. If you spend too much at Outback in a month, do you rob a bank to pay for it because your income should be what you agreed to spend that month?

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Friday, December 28, 2007 That is not correct. What is needed is what Congress agrees to spend. That may not agree with every person but when the majority of Congress sets the spending levels that is WHAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING! Then we need to PAY for 100% of what Congress has agreed to spend! Wrong. That is how we get pork!

You are correct. However if the Majority of Congress pass the appropriations with that pork it needs to be funded. If we could some how take ALL the Pork and Earmarks out of the budget, the estimates I have scene as to how much that is about $25-30 Billion. That is not even close to balancing the budget. We need a balanced Budget Amendment that REQUIRES Congress to fund the amount they approve to be spent including at time of war. The ONLY exception I would like to see is for something like Katrina.

For someone clamoring for a balanced budget, you sure go about it in an unusual manner. If you spend too much at Outback in a month, do you rob a bank to pay for it because your income should be what you agreed to spend that month?

If you spending exceeds you income and you decide that is what you NEED to spend, you look for a better paying job or get a second job to increase your income so you can pay for what you have decided to spend. What you do not do is just put any difference on your credit card. That will cause a future problem and that is JUST what Bush and the GOP in Congress have done!