| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Molfan (57)
11/19/2006 | all three have it's importance. but for me at this time, it would be health care, at this time three out of four family members do not have any insurance in a week we will have none. there is noway we can afford it. and it is scary. if one of us gets seriously sick, we could never pay the bills. we are one of the 45 million without insurance. cannot give answers of what can be done. it just seems we should all have decent affordable insurance. and a lot of us do not.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MariusQelDroma (36)
12/29/2005 | Numbah, it's hard to build bombs if you don't know what you're doing, or don't have the know-how to place them right where they do the most good. I'll throw my hat into education's ring, with health care second. Sick soldiers can't fight, either.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (147)
12/22/2005 | I always support buying bombs first.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (61)
12/21/2005 | Wouldn't it be great if our federal government ONLY spent money on the things it is constitutionally obligated to do? Is health care a constitutional right? It is? Which part of the constitution? Do we ALL have a contitutioanl right to an education? Sorry. We don't. We can really only expect the federal government to keep us safe from outside invasion. And once we put an adult in charge of it, the attacks seem to have stopped.
Although the track record of the feds on defense has been spotty at times, it's one of the few things the federal government has ever done well. Liberals rail at the amount of money spent on defense as a waste. But to really see waste, in its purest sense, put the federal government in charge of something people are very emotional about, success can almost never be measured accurately and people must contribute to under penalty of federal prison.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Sundiszno (30)
12/21/2005 |  In terms of federal priorities, it has to be defense, even though right now I believe that we have the best, most potent military establishment in the world. Conventionally, we should be able to kick just about anybody's backside in a hearbeat, but, unfortunately, the nature of warfare seems to be changing to more of an unconventional mode, so Stealth fighters and the whole panoply of similar high-tech weapons might not be the appropriate weapons to combat our current enemies. We certainly need to keep our defense capabilities high, over a broad spectrum. As a former intel weenie, I think that we need more of an intel capability within the defense establishment. Education is a priority, but at the statre and local levels - and from current, direct experience, I can say that there are some serious problems with the education system. Health care - pumping federal dolars into the system won't help much if they aren't spent wisely. The idea of universal health care, ultimately funded by taxpayers, doesn't really appeal to me. I don't want to pay for my health care as well as for the health care of a bunch of other people, and in the process getting stuck with an over-regulated, inefficient, bureaucratic system that provides sub-standard care.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | souljunkie (20)
12/21/2005 | Right now...Defence by a long shot.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | zuchinibut (36)
12/21/2005 | Each of these choices demands a high amount of federal funding and organization to work efficiently. While I am not one for over-zealous defense spending, I do believe that it is more of a priority for the FEDERAL government than the other two choices. Education can be maintainted by private sources or state governments, and health care can be maintained privately and to a lesser extent by the states. However, I do not think that privately run or state run defense systems would be beneficial for our country as a whole.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Wavebacker (25)
12/21/2005 | Would'nt it be great to have a Universal Health Care System where even people with no Insurance could get basic Health care and people with major health issues wont go broke paying Health costs?
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | traderboy (25)
12/21/2005 | Health care. Tackle it now, while we can still get our pudgy little hands around its swollen ankles. Otherwise, it gallops away and eventually drags the ecomony alongside it.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | LanceRoxas (40)
12/21/2005 | Hmmm... we already spend more on education than any nation in the world. The problem with heath care is that politicians keep over regulating the system and causing the prices to rise, then demand greater government control when the prices are too high for people who can't take the time to sign up for free health care to afford.
I do know however that the primary goal of the Federal Government is to provide for a national defense- one that will protect the structures of government and our cultural institutions that allow us to be free. Give me a little too much defense and greater responsibility to provide for myself anyday over cradle to grave entitlements and a Carteresque defense.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-10 OF 10 | View All |
