Kasz216 said:
It probably is... despite what it's being made out to be terrorism isn't really that big of a risk to the country. I mean, how many terrorist attacks have hit the US? Not that many... and most of them are domestic. A bad piece of legislation can do way more damage then any attack could. For example, which has done more damage to the US... Terrorism or Legislation that caused the bank meltdown crisis? Terrorism or the War in Iraq? Terrorism or Legislation that will cost everyone a lot more money, runs up the national debt, and won't get meanifgul benefits for 10 years (White house estimate) and may never actually produce realilizable benefits. (Opposition estimate.)
I'm going legislation every time... the first two killed more people, and this healthcare bill could ironically end up doing the same despite its goal being the opposite. (through effecting peoples pocket books negativly rather then positivly.) |
You're only looking at terrorist attacks in the US, there have been many attacks against Americans and American interests and allies since 9/11.
Technically, 9/11 led to the legislation to go to Iraq which means terrorism caused (or was used as an excuse for) the invasion.
Where do you get the idea that more people will die from healthcare reform than the current state of healthcare? You're just making it up because of your ideological stance. 45000 people die each year because lack of health insurance, increasing coverage is gonna kill more people? How?
I have another question, do you value material losses as equal to the loss of human life? Legislation made it easier for people to do what they did which led to the meltdown, but greed caused it. People's greed led them to give out bad loands and other people to take the loans knowing they canoot pay them back and others to bet everything they had on the price of their homes stay high or keep climbing.
Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!
