"I do not understand why some people are opposed to a $25 billion government bailout of the U.S. auto industry." Because bailing out inefficient (unionized) auto companies is not authorized by the United States Constitution as among the federal government's responsibilities, that's why. Meanwhile, responding in-kind to attacks on our forces (Saddam's forces shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq)...is perfectly within the scope of defined duties. Furthermore, comparing the cost of the bailout to the war is positively moronic. It's like saying that you could buy three tons of cotton candy for what this week's meats, vegetables, and other groceries would cost. It may not cost as much to bailout an automaker as it does to fight a war, but that still doesn't mean it's a prudent expense. What needs to happen is to allow GM and other automakers to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from their creditors. This doesn't necessarily mean the end of the company, but simply would give it time to reorganize. United Airlines and Delta both flew while in Chapter 11 and got by without the feds bailing them out...why can't GM?

Please explain how getting out of Iraq will save $10 billion a month. Will the regular troops stop getting paid? Will the services stop feeding & housing troops? Will we no longer need equipment? Will training cease? $10 billion a month is political speak. Someone knows the marginal costs of the war - bullets, bombs, hazzard pay, etc - but no one wants to talk about it. Why? Political speak requires to amplify everything to make a point. Get everyone committed to an idea, implement it & forget it. No one will follow up on where the $10 billion a month went to. We'll have some new & more pressing government spending program to talk about.