War on Children - Page 5

JCF · 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Funny, I talk to many active military as well as retired vets, none speak as you say, their voting records shows this too. Well, you must hang out with some losers who make very bad desicions if they work 2 jobs and can't even buy a cheap, used car, where does their money go, up their noses?? You might want to look for a new group of people to hang out with, before they drag you down. How do you work 2 jobs and not be able to buy a $1K car unless you have make some very poor desicions in your like??

You must only speak with the generals.

I'll bet you put more up your nose - no, never mind - you can play in the mud by yourself.

I just disagree with your solition to health care - which seems to me to be that you ignore there is a problem. Or it is only "losers" who will suffer.
There is, talk to some doctors or hospital personel.
Doing nothing will end up costing YOU more in the end. Or your children - maybe you don't have any and therefore don't care.
Too bad you didn't live in this world all by yourself.
Since the human suffering thing isn't enough to make you at least think about it.

DanielDudley · 10-07-2007, 07:08 PM

Thank God he's the education president. At least our kids will be able to figure out who's screwing them - or maybe not.

A fish rots from its head down. Go figure.

Superman · 10-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabs

Hate to clue you all but $83K a year is minimum wages.

I'm still on Page 1, reading. You guys have been busy. FWIW, I was wondering what sort of drug, or perhaps just alcohol, was steering Tabs into a discussion of his own qualifications for discussing unions and whether he had sobered since Friday when I noticed his declaration that $83K was minimum wage. I guess that rules out alcohol. Pretty funny.

For the record.......more than 15,500 hours would need to be worked at $5.85 (the current federal minimum wage) in order to earn $83K. There are less than 8,800 hours in a year. So.....two minimum wage workers could potentially earn that figure, as long as they ate meals VERY quickly and neither slept.

Superman · 10-08-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Superman, if this is all Bush's doing, why can't the House override his veto?

This is my point. Dubya's political genius is about to become even more difficult to grasp. You see, I think this issue (children's health) has mountains of political fuel just waiting to be tapped. I mean, the absence of a veto would make this a non-issue. I suspect that a number of congress persons will be persuaded shortly to support the veto override. Dubya has painted himself into an ugly corner. Few congress people are going to want to identify themselves with Dubya when the Dems are finished working this one.

And again, as we are discussing on another thread, some guys just don't get it. The way to run a legislature (or Congress) is to work with the existing members to get stuff through. That's something Dubya will NEVER stoop to. And so, he will be endlessly crucified. If there were no term limits, his impeachment proceedings would be well underway. At this point, it's a matter of how many Dubya decisions did an incumbent oppose. That's chiefly how the next election will be scored in voters' minds. By next November, "Dubya" will be synonymous with "Republican" and other terms like "Incompetent" and "Irresponsible." Politics has rarely been this simple.

Rearden · 10-08-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

If there were no term limits, his impeachment proceedings would be well underway.

Impeachment?!
What crime did he commit?

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

This is my point. Dubya's political genius is about to become even more difficult to grasp. You see, I think this issue (children's health) has mountains of political fuel just waiting to be tapped. I mean, the absence of a veto would make this a non-issue. I suspect that a number of congress persons will be persuaded shortly to support the veto override. Dubya has painted himself into an ugly corner. Few congress people are going to want to identify themselves with Dubya when the Dems are finished working this one.

And again, as we are discussing on another thread, some guys just don't get it. The way to run a legislature (or Congress) is to work with the existing members to get stuff through. That's something Dubya will NEVER stoop to. And so, he will be endlessly crucified. If there were no term limits, his impeachment proceedings would be well underway. At this point, it's a matter of how many Dubya decisions did an incumbent oppose. That's chiefly how the next election will be scored in voters' minds. By next November, "Dubya" will be synonymous with "Republican" and other terms like "Incompetent" and "Irresponsible." Politics has rarely been this simple.

No, you are wrong again. Not only that, you obviously do not know what is in this bill.

The hallmark of his tenure as governor of Texas was working with both sides of the aisle, and this is one of the many rasons I voted for him the first time around. His handlers convinced him he did not need to do this as he would have enough support in both houses of congress to just steamroller things through, which angered the Left, because they were not the ones driving the steamroller.

When the opportunity presented itself, rather than do what is best for the country, they want PAYBACK! They do what they can to undermine the authority and prestige of the chief executive at every opportunity, consequently damaging the reputation and position of the country they were elected to put before their own interests.

Superman · 10-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Rearden, impeachment does not require a crime. It only requires an absence of competence, which is obviously the situation we are in.

Thanks, Livi. I think.

I started this thread simply to discuss the shrewdness, or lack thereof, of Dubya's decision to veto. Not the question of whether that veto was appropriate from a practical, administrative perspective. Just the politics. The pure politics of being labeled as the guy who not only voted against, but used his veto authority to quash a bill that would have provided heath care to X million children.

But then you guys got to talking about the practical considerations, and I am pleased by reading that discussion. It was fruitful, and that is always my hope for our discussions. The guys who favor domestic spending for purposes like this argue:

* American dollars are better spent on Americans directly than on Iraqis who don't want us there in the first place, and who squander our contributions anyway.

* What's up with the bazillions we spend on private contractors with no oversight?

And the conservatives argue:

* Domestic spending is hurtful because it makes Americans lazy.

* We would all be dead but for the money we spend in Iraq killing terrorists and scaring the rest into not hating us any more.

___

I wonder how much health care costs it would take to make a poor child lazy. I mean, if we just check whether a bacterial infection is present versus a virus, that can't cost all that much and I can't imagine it causing permanent laziness. On the other hand, the cost of treating a serious infection might be very large, or amputation of the infected limb...that might be expensive too and might cause laziness. Of course, not treating the infection will cause the death of the child and perhaps that's the best way to go. That way, nobody's hard-earned money is wasted on this child and there would be no chance for the child to grow into a lazy adult who costs the taxpayer more money.

And what about this whole idea of laziness? I notice that Christ is reported to have suggested that we help those in need. Was He unaware of the damaging effect of this? Was He silly enough to imagine that victims might be grateful for the help? Maybe he just did not understand the consequences. Or maybe he knew the consequences, and made this request anyway.....in which case you guys are suggesting we ignore that assignment because of the burden.

BTW, I happen to agree that domestic assistance spending should encourage, rather than discourage, self-help. You guys talk as if domestic spending always causes laziness. I would not be surprised if you simply supported the notion that there should be no domestic spending.....after all, it's your (greed) tax dollars we're talking about. But I am surprised that you're doing this by pretending that all domestic spending is harmful.

I think we can do more. I think that if we're creating a community of lazybones, then that's wrong and we could do more. I think that programs which teach and encourage and provide resources toward economic independence and social responsibility are worth it. They are actually more expensive than the giveaway systems we have, but we lack the funds and the support in order to get the job done right. Do you guys oppose programs that can get the job done right? Would you oppose programs that take some of those lazybones folks and usher them into independence and success? Bear in mind, it would be more expensive up front. The pot of gold is the future. In the future those people will pay more taxes than they spend. If we don't do this, then they may always spend more than they pay.

I fear that many of you will sing the same song again, in response to my questions. But I am asking them anyway. Do you simply oppose all gubmit spending that helps people? or do you even know what you wish for, other than your nonsensical political beliefs and the wish that you could keep more of your money?

Superman · 10-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Tobra, I know what is in the bill. Try to keep up, please. The thread was about politics. Pure politics. Putting a poisonous passage in a bill is a longstanding trick that your "party" understands quite well. Turnabout is fair play. Quite frankly, I will be smiling when your "party" gets the labels it deserves.

Youre right about one thing. Dubya has had no intention of "working with" Congress. One of the most obvious and different approaches of this so-called "administration" has been its complete disregard for working with Congress. Heck, Dubya doesn't stop there. His disdain for Congress is about equal to his dismissal of the will of the American people. And they will be fully reminded of his behavior as the leader of your "party." Again, back to the politics.......it will be interesting to see how many of his Republican brothers and sisters circle the wagons and defend his veto of a bill that would have given health care to millions of American children.

If this veto is overridden, the damage to Dubya and his party will not be lessened, but it will be one of the absolutely most amusing of all veto overrides.

Pure genius. No wonder you guys are so proud and happy with this guy.

Rearden · 10-08-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

If this veto is overridden, the damage to Dubya and his party will not be lessened, but it will be one of the absolutely most amusing of all veto overrides.

Pure genius. No wonder you guys are so proud and happy with this guy.

It's too little, too late. But better late than never to become a fiscal conservative. The Republicans lost in 2004 because they spent too much. Don't forget that Bush's approval rating is 50% higher than Congress' (31% vs 22%)

FrayAdjacent911 · 10-08-2007, 06:57 PM

Whaaa... Bush didn't want to do a 'take from the rich and give to the poor' act.

I'm all for cutting back on welfare. Want your kids to have good insurance? Get an education, get a job, and get them insurance!

Time we started weaning people of the tit of welfare!

JCF · 10-09-2007, 03:26 AM

No - All he wants is to take from the middle class to give to the rich.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 10-09-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCF

No - All he wants is to take from the middle class to give to the rich.

there's a middle class? if there is, what's left of it won't be long for this Earth. Between Reagan and now Bush with the amnesty for illegals, and Clinton's free trade, the middle class has been pounded for 30 years now.

cmccuist · 10-09-2007, 06:14 AM

I'll never forget when the clintons were president and the democrats controlled everything. hillary came up with her "punish the doctors", "reward the trial lawyers", socialized medicine plan. There were 11 democrats in the house ways and means committee and 10 republicans. The republicans submitted hillary's plan raw! no ammendments, no changes, just the bare-assed, horrific takeover by the government.

The final vote - 10 republicans voted against, 11 pussified, candyass democrats abstained. Thankfully, that sick piece of legislation never made it out of committee.

This is the same situation all over again. This trojan horse was never going to become law. It was always a campaign issue. W was going to veto it and the democrats were going to use it in the upcoming election and run ads about how heartless the GOP is when it comes to children and health care.

Even the most neophyte, unsophisticated political hack could see that. Those ads were probably being put in the can as the legislation was being drafted!

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

The sad thing is that there are people who really think it's cold and heartless for the gov't. to not take care of kids. It's exactly the opposite.

1fastredsc · 10-09-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrayAdjacent911

I'm all for cutting back on welfare. Want your kids to have good insurance? Get an education, get a job, and get them insurance!

Last time i checked, kids cannot pick who their parents are.........

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1fastredsc

Last time i checked, kids cannot pick who their parents are.........

I guess that means we can only blame the parents then.

legion · 10-09-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I guess that means we can only blame the parents then.

Yep, and shame is a far more powerful motivator than any law--especially laws that seek to remove shame and toss money instead.

Just to be clear to the thick-skulled: the kids would be better off if their parents were ashamed of not adequately providing for them (and were therefore motivated to do better) than growing up under the dismotivational malaise that accompanies "minimum" government assistance. (All government programs gravitate towards providing absolute minimum service over time--especially as the government shifts costs to providers.)

Superman · 10-09-2007, 09:34 AM

Yes, people shouldn't be lazy. Or ignorant. They should be informed and energetic. Productive.

But what happens when this is not the case? Or perhaps you think that everyone can be taught to be ambitious? Or that not everyone will be ambitious, and those who are not......should starve? And you think that would work? I would, honestly, like to hear peoples' answers to these question. Really. I'm taken by surprise a bit, when I hear this suggestion that we simply withdraw all the safety nets which are causing the problem. So....I really don't know whether you guys believe this will cure everyone, or less than everyone. And what you would do about the people who are still unproductive.

And then of course there are the handicapped. And how to we assess someone's level of handicap?

"Decisions regarding children should be left to the families." We heard a great deal about this when we adopted child labor regulations at our state Labor department. Employers hammered on this. Because it makes for a cute soundbite. But there's a problem. What about families that con't give a **** about the kids? What about families where the parent(s) sit around drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and taking methamphetamines while the children wish they had something to eat?

What about them. I'm interested in your answers to this question also.

1fastredsc · 10-09-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

Yep, and shame is a far more powerful motivator than any law--especially laws that seek to remove shame and toss money instead.

Just to be clear to the thick-skulled: the kids would be better off if their parents were ashamed of not adequately providing for them (and were therefore motivated to do better) than growing up under the dismotivational malaise that accompanies "minimum" government assistance. (All government programs gravitate towards providing absolute minimum service over time--especially as the government shifts costs to providers.)

Shame....... what is this shame you speak of. America where we look up to the celebs and athletes, not the intelligent and hard working. Where your looked up to if you make a lot of money while doing the least amount of work. I don't understand this "shame" concept at all

Shaun @ Tru6 · 10:21 AM

Shame is such a negative emotion. Surely we can get people off of welfare while feeling good about themselves, no? Stopping a cycle on a negative is probably not sustainable from a psychological viewpoint. Most likely it would just breed other negativities, perhaps one reason why people are poor in the first place. If you have low self-esteem, you probably aren't in the best mindset to apply for job, whether janitorial or reaching for a dream job.