Comparing a modest proposal to the bush admistration

[NeoTheOne]

I was reading a modest proposal and it makes me think of the parrales between the bush administration and the war on iraq.

In the modest proposal , the essay is essenitly telling the poor of Ireland to eat their kids and sell them to be eaten to help the economy. As shocking as this may sound at first, the essay which is a satire is trying to bring out the faults of the irish governments oppression against the poor and also at a larger scaleSwift successfully indicts the brutality of man as a whole. A Modest Proposal goes well beyond the limits of Europe, shedding a sickening light on all humanity and the way in which we treat each other. This can be related to the essay Another $200 Billion . In this editorial , the author is describing the money that is being wasted in the war against Iraq.
Thematically speaking the first connection that can be made is in a Modest Propsoal , Johnath swift Is saying that the kingdom of Ireland does not care for its poor , and because of this the poor will have to sell their kids to be eaten for money. In 200 Billion , the first line of the essay makes an impact on the reader as it shows the inhumane side of the bush admistraition President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. This quote is basically showing that the “Kingdom of America” which is currently the Bush Admistration does not care for its citizens instead its investing in a war (which many polls show that the countries citizens don’t want to be in) rather then investing in better health care, which America desperately needs.

Another way to compare both the essays is that in the modest proposal the reader gets the sense that the kingdom is devouring the poor farmer’s kids. In 200 Billion, Bush can be looked upon as a Tyrannical monster which is devouring the innocent kids of the families , in this case the kids are soldiers which are fighting in a war brought upon by the bush admistriation . In both the essays, it is the governments fault that familes will or are going to lose their kids

[Ænima]

I was reading a modest proposal and it makes me think of the parrales between the bush administration and the war on iraq.

I read that essay, too. Not one of my favorite satires.
Moving on...

In the modest proposal , the essay is essenitly telling the poor of Ireland to eat their kids and sell them to be eaten to help the economy. As shocking as this may sound at first, the essay which is a satire is trying to bring out the faults of the irish governments oppression against the poor and also at a larger scaleSwift successfully indicts the brutality of man as a whole. A Modest Proposal goes well beyond the limits of Europe, shedding a sicckening light on all humanity and the way in whih we treat each other. This can be related to the essay Another $200 Billion . In this editorial , the author is describing the money that is being wasted in the war against Iraq.

The bold is a stretch, because the satire is so outdated; but I understand you are just trying to show a parallel between then and now. For the record, I haven't read $200 Billion, but I - as every American should - know the affairs of Dubbe-Ya.

Thematically speaking the first connection that can be made is in a Modest Propsoal , Johnath swift Is saying that the kingdom of Ireland does not care for its poor , and because of this the poor will have to sell their kids to be eaten for money.

Yeah, I mean, the kids are going to die of starvation anyway. The mothers are getting nothing out of bearing a child (understatement!), given the chance of their child's survival.

In 200 Billion , the first line of the essay makes an impact on the reader as it shows the inhumane side of the bush admistraition President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. This quote is basically showing that the “Kingdom of America” which is currently the Bush Admistration does not care for its citizens instead its investing in a war (which many polls show that the countries citizens don’t want to be in) rather then investing in better health care, which America desperately needs.

You need to cite. I'm not debating without knowing exactly what I'm debating about. (I'm lying)

Another way to compare both the essays is that in the modest proposal the reader gets the sense that the kingdom is devouring the poor farmer’s kids. In 200 Billion, Bush can be looked upon as a Tyrannical monster which is devouring the innocent kids of the families , in this case the kids are soldiers which are fighting in a war brought upon by the bush admistriation . In both the essays, it is the governments fault that familes will or are going to lose their kids

WOW! That is the most biased, attack on president Bush I have read. You should not feel proud.

Bush is not a "Tyrannical monster." Pathos. No, that is ******' bathos. He is a president of a republic. Impeachment is a possibility. Overriding his vetoes are also a possiblity. If you cannot even recognize that...

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the SCHIP expansion and Bush's request for some 50 billion dollars for Iraq this past month.

I agree with Bush and his fellow republicans in Congress. A competitive market is better for the long-term success of the American economy, since it fosters progress. Honestly, competition is no knew thing. I recognize the financial gap between the governmentally-funded and privitized health care systems - the middle class bearing all the burden and whatnot -, but there is no reason why you should feel sympathetic for those people - at least not in the same way one feels sympathetic for the (actual) poor. They have complete freedom to lower their income and become elligable for government-funding. They also have complete freedom to compete for a higher income - if they really cared about their health insurance that is. If you keep raising the standards of elligibility every time the cost of privatized health insurance rises, pretty soon we will end up living in a socialist society, with the privatized (not to mention best) health insurance only left for the very rich. (Yes, privitized insurance would rise if the SCHIP expansion should be passed because as less and less people choose private health care, the insurance companies will get less and less profit. Even though the number of people whose cases, for which the insurance companies will be forced to pay, declines, an even more severe drop will occur in the number of people who pay for their insurance but do not need the insurance comanies money - since there are more people who pay for insurance but do not need the money than there are people who d pay for insurance and do need the money!) No one wants stagnation, except those who cannot compete with the rest. Why fight evolution? You are only mitigating its process...

Bush's veto simpy stops the ever-rising elligibility of the socialist institution. The man labelled as an authoritarian actually prevented us from diving down the slippery slope towards economic statism.

And I honestly don't see the correlation between the funds for Iraq and the SCHIP expansion. Bush is using money withou raising taxes to fund the war. The SCHIP expansion requires additional taxes for people only marginally poor (if that). Granted taxing cigarettes inhibits their sales and prevents less cigarettes-related health issues, which saves money for both the government and the privatized insurance companies. However, they are taxes nonetheless and are in principle economically unsound, the reason for which I state in the preceding paragraph - if you wish to reread...

Furthermore, Bush does not "devour innocent kids" (metahorically of course). Do you even realize that the U.S. militants are above the age of 18, and therefore are not considered kids? They are adults, and they are serving our country BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO (yes, I am yelling). Although I do not agree with the soldiers' decision for going into Iraq - whatever it may be -, I do at least acknowledge (unlike you) their free will in their decision to serve.

Thank you, pease don't tl;dr, and good night. Libertarians unite.

[NeoTheOne]

Here is the 200 Billion I am talking about :
Another USD 200 Billion: The New York Times
Washington, Oct 26: President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq.

The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.

Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide USD 22 billion more than the USD 933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”

This from a leader who turns federal surpluses into deficits, believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars can be financed on a separate set of books with borrowed money, and keeps having to go back to Congress for “emergency funding” because he cannot or will not tell the truth about what it is costing to fight these wars.

Mr. Bush’s latest emergency request is for USD 46 billion. That would bring the 2008 price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan to USD 196.4 billion. Starting at Sept 11, 2001, war-fighting expenses total a staggering USD 800 billion or more. The nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says that by the end of the year spending on Iraq will probably surpass that on the Vietnam War.

Mr. Bush has said most of the new money would go for “day-to-day” military operations and “basic needs” like bullets, body armor and mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, which are designed to withstand bomb attacks, a rising threat to American forces in Iraq. The troops need safer vehicles and better armor, but it is beyond our ken why Mr. Bush could not cover this in his original budget submission, unless he wanted to confuse the public and limit Congressional oversight.

And there is no end in sight. Mr Bush clearly plans to keep fighting this pointless war until his last day in office. The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, told The Times that he will press Congress to sustain current military spending levels even after the Iraq war ends so the Pentagon can repair and replace worn-out weapons and rebuild ground forces.

The Pentagon will certainly need help recovering, but the country cannot keep signing blank checks. The next president, and Congress, will finally have to impose some discipline, starting with an honest review of what is needed to keep America safe, not just enrich military contractors and their lobbyists.

Democrats have failed repeatedly to end the Iraq war or to substantially change its course. Now they face another test. Mr. Bush will try to ram his spending request through Congress before Christmas, using the impending holiday to create a false sense of urgency. They must resist that, and try again to use their power of the purse to force the president to begin serious planning for a swift and orderly exit from Iraq. They cannot have it both ways — opposing the war and enabling Mr. Bush to keep it going full speed and full cost ahead.

If the Republicans block that, then the Democrats must at least insist on the fiscal prudence that Mr. Bush and his party claim to believe in so fervently. Representative David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is already calling for a war tax. That, at least, would be a more honest and responsible way to ensure that all Americans share the financial burden of this war.

[Ænima]

Here is the 200 Billion I am talking about :

Yeah, I know. Follow my link:

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the SCHIP expansion and Bush's request for some 50 billion dollars for Iraq this past month.

The title of the article linked in the latter link is "Bush to request $196.4 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan."
And why don't you cite? Where did you get the article from, democrats.org?
It is perfectly sensible to see democrats (present-day socialists to me) decry a depletion in the governments resources. However, might doesn't make right. Those who agree with minarchism, or minimal statism, will condone George Bush for creating deficits as much as they did when Reagan had done it 20 years ago.

[Ænima]

This from a leader who turns federal surpluses into deficits, believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars can be financed on a separate set of books with borrowed money, and keeps having to go back to Congress for “emergency funding” because he cannot or will not tell the truth about what it is costing to fight these wars.

Go Bush!!!

[bigboab]

This from a leader who turns federal surpluses into deficits, believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars can be financed on a separate set of books with borrowed money, and keeps having to go back to Congress for “emergency funding” because he cannot or will not tell the truth about what it is costing to fight these wars.

Go Bush!!!

Kev?

[Ænima]

Kev?

Sorry, I don't follow

[Rat Faced]

Irish Government?

Kingdom of Ireland?

I think you need to read that Essay again... I think you may find its a swipe at the English concerning their treatment of the Irsih during the English Civil War. ie: When it was a Republic.

I think you'll find most Irishmen will agree Cromwell was a most pleasent chap.

He was such a nutcase and fun loving guy that him and his mates the Puritans eventually went somewhere else to practise politics.

The Americas or some place... On reflection, this may have been a bad idea....