War on Children
 

In a continuing display of political genius that is beyond everyone else's understanding, George Dubya Bush recently vetoed legislation that would have protected the health of millions of American children. It seems clear Mr. Bush intends to pay no attention to the wishes of the American people, and to mark out a special recognition in the history books. A legacy. I think he will achieve remarkable success in both goals.

As I have often mentioned, this fellow's political and public policy genius is certainly beyond my understanding. Fighting against childrens' health, approving torture methods, spending like a drunken sailor, foreign relations dismissal, orchestrating the appearance of colossal incompetence in virtually all cabinet agencies......I'm still waiting to see how all these tactics fit together to pave the way for security and prosperity for future Americans and political support for his "party." These actions cannot possibly be thought to be consistent with what is known as "conventional wisdom."

As I say, I have no doubt......no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Bush has indeed secured a very special place in future American History discussions.

Please elaborate how the health of millions of American's children would have been protected.

i think the only way for Mr Bush to get impeached is if he has an affair with an intern and lies about it...

And then commits perjury and obstruction of justice. Absolutely.

Why should a family making $80,000+ per year have their children's health insurance paid for by the rest of us? Buy it yourself, "poor" family.

Considering he is one of the few involved not running for re-election on this emotional and populist issue, I wonder what his reasons were? Eveyone knows the Press did not give them..

So insuring kids whose parents make $80,000 is a priority of our government? All this is is the Dems trying to expand a government-run insurance program into fully socialized medicine one special-interest group at a time. They figure they've got this one in the bag because they can use the "what about the children" argument. I've noticed all of the news reports have conspicuously omitted how this program was started for low-income people (who were made too much money for medicare/medicaid), and is being expanded to cover people who make up to four times the poverty limit. So it's an expansion of an expansion that was only supposed to be a safety net. And people wonder why I am adamant to say "no" to any new programs--they only grow and grow until everyone is affected, and taxed.

Supe, your cluelessness here is only exceeded by your ego and desire to bash the President, no matter how few of the facts you have on hand.

Okay, so you guys agree with Dubya's veto decision? Okay. America does not.

Hank Paulson (sec Treasury) doesn't seem to be incompetent. Nor is the appointment of Brenake for Fed Reserve Chairman. Both Bush Appointees.

Why am I at odds with U again Stuper..your a nice guy even if I think your delusional. I have been on both sides of the Union issue. I have family that RISKED everything to get the UAW in. Literally people were picked up and thrown out of the house by the seat of their pants for dissing the Union. So there is NOTHING you can add to my understanding of what the Union meant to alot of people.

Frankly Super when it comes to the Union your nothin but a "Johnny Come Lately, Good Time Charlie" when it comes right down to it.

great to see you guys have bought into the $83K lie by George Bush. you really ought to listen to real news so that whenever he says something, like families making $83,000 a year will be covered, or, say, "we don't use torture," you'll know he is lying and get the real story. of course then you'd have to actually think and use some critical/comparative analysis skills to make...oh nevermind. here's a hot tip for you guys: Walmart is having a SALE on food dehydrators.

Not...that I don't think Bush is trying hard to destroy this country piece-by-little-piece, but wasn't there some kind of completely unrelated rider on that bill that related to troop withdrawl or something to that effect?
The legislative process needs to simplify itself and make each baby step understandable to the public, so this emotive National Enquirer type thinking is recognized and disregarded.

[edit]: we're piss ant broke anyways, as per the Republican tax and spend plan(TM), so it's no wonder we don't have money.

If this is such a good idea - then why didn't Billy Boy do it 8 years ago??

I have not read up on this issue - as of this point my natural reaction is to disagree with those that cry foul the loudest..

That's freakin' sweet. Can I put PORK in that mother!#@$er?

OK so GW Bush lies, are the Dems any better? I get the feelin I'm being lied to by everybody. Everybody has their own agenda (spin) to push...my plan is the best, cause my friends get rich off of it. Or your plan suxs because my friends aren't gettin any of the gravy.

One of the things I have to watch myself about is getting too complacent about being lied to. Everybody is doing it so it must be ok. That is one he11 of a slipery slope, over time what will be the next depradation that will become acceptable?

great wordplay!

just making my way through an A/R reconciliation.:)

I make less than 80K and I have to provide for my kids healthcare. I sure don't expect anyone else to foot the bill, they are my responsibilty, not tax payers who make more than 80k. If I only made 20k, I would still expect to be responsible for MY kids. If folks can't afford to have kids, they shouldn't. This really is quite simple and straight forward for folks who ultimately believe in personal responsibilty. Only those folks who are easily caught up in the "what about the children" outcrys and those who do not take responsibilty for their lives seem to have a problem with this veto (of course along with the folks who just simply hate Bush and the republicans).

You are right. New York's exception was denied. OK, then, $60,000.

I suggest we kill all the 'first born children' of anyone living in a Red state. That should help.

Vote for me.

Hey ...it's about as intelligent a plan as some floated by our distinguished, elected officials.

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

Have five kids and factor in earned income credits, section 8 housing voucher, food stamps and free health care and you are about right!:rolleyes:

Nice spin super, too bad there's not a thread of truth to it.

"War on Children"

Nice title. Maybe Bushhitler McHalliburton can hire Blackwater (on a no-bid contract) to mow them all down.

God damnit, its not even close to November and the politcal threads are starting again. Where is that political thread sub forum?

So irratating.

Superman, if this is all Bush's doing, why can't the House override his veto? You think he has that many allies in the House anymore? IIRC, the SCHIP program was a Republican initiative to begin with. Or at least it went into effect in 1997 when the GOP still ran both houses on the Hill. It was wrong then and it's wong to expand something already wrong.

I guess I'm just confused by you "compassionate conservatives". Bush and his fellow compassionates pushed through Medicare Part D which subsidizes presecription drugs for ANYONE over the age of 65 (regardless of their income or wealth). This rather complicated program is projected to cost minimally 750 BILLION over the next ten years, many think it will be much more. And who benefits the most: the drug companies (you know, those people who make all those big contributions to the politicians). And the govt. can't even negotiate for lower prices with the drug companies, we pay full tilt. The estimate is the cost would be $300 Billion less if the prices could have been negotiated.

And let's take it a step further. Anyone 65 and over qualifies for Medicare. It makes no difference how much money you have. So based on the postings here, I assume most of you think we should do away with Medicare. Those people who need it just didn't understand personal responsibility and should have saved more money so they could afford that prostrate operation when they were 82.

The SCHIP was meant to insure the children of the more or less working poor. That is people on welfare don't even fit into this. As I understand it, a family of 4 making 64K would qualify. What defines the income of the working poor? Kind of depends on where you live but you have to set a cutoff somewhere.

I hope none of you ranting about this being socialized medicine are ever put in a position of not having medical insurance (and it can happen). As to someones comment about having a health spending account in case of not being covered for a period of time: You obviously have not been in a hospital or to an emergency room lately.

I don't support the Prescription Drug bill either.

I read somewhere that 10% of any society is disabled, either mentally or physically. Society should compassionately take care of them. The rest of us should be on our own.

I was vehemently opposed to the Medicare presciption drug benefit. I don't personally know any conservatives who support it. It was 110% wrong. BUT, Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion was right and I'll take what I can get. Once in a while he gets it right. I don't care about his reasons.

ding ding ding, we have a winner

Oh and the medicare part D is a farce. You would be stunned by the number of people who thought they were signing up for this and got slammed into a medicare HMO and did not get wise to it until their bills started coming back unpaid

This is just one more way the liberal dems are using to enslave people to the government plantation:mad: Taking the responsibility of taking care of children from the losers who keep voting for them and funding it with tax dollars from those of us who take care of our selves. People need to wake up, the dems are keeping them enslaved and they are too stupid to know it, just like blacks, they support the group who has hurt, not helped them, poor are the same way:confused:

+1

How's this for compassion

"I mean , people have access to health care in America. After all , you can just go to an emergency room"

- King Georgy in July

Well, these people planned to grow old and many planned on taking care of themselves, unless they were dumb enough to be/stay enslaved on the dem plantation;) Many have contributed greatly to this country.

Family of 4, well, that is very poor planning if you can't afford to take care of them, if you can't feed, don't breed em:mad:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?? I take it from the above that you take personal responsibility very seriously. Therefore I must assume that if and when your parents (or grandparents?) can no longer fend for themselves and need long term care they have saved up that $3-5$K per month they will need for as long as they live or that you will assume full responsibility for their care in case they don't happen to have that much money saved up?? I don't wish long term care on anyone but in reality many of us will face that issue eventually.

It seems many on this board, i.e. the compassionate conservatives in particular seem to believe that personal responsibility only applies to children. Once you are over 65 it's the governments responsibility to take care of the elders.

War on children?

I predict the kids are going to lose this war, big time!

They're mostly unarmed and a lot smaller than us adults. Sure, some grown-ups will end up dead, but the war itself won't even be close.

Best,

Kurt

give me a break, gov't can't and doesn't solve problems.

It's "for the children"...right? Gimme a break. This has been the leftist chant for years. So...how am I supposed to care for my own child when liberal politicians rip me off "FOR THE CHILDREN"????? The $$$ that got ripped from my hide for the poor quality schooling my child got would have been better spent on a quality private school education. I was fooled once, volunteering to serve on a government school budget committe. I won't be fooled again. I learned a lot...especially about the extortion techniques of the teacher's union....

Now you try to tell me that government funding will provide better care "for the children"????

I don't think so.

Such funding, however, will produce wealthy bureaucrats...

Mods, can we rename this thread: "The War on My Wallet"?

When my Grandmother developed cancer (she has since passed) I took a lot of time off of work to help her, I also made sure that she was never short of any money (she did save, but I still helped, even though she didn't like it) My Grandmother who was given 6 weeks , made it a year & a half, she passed at her home, with family at her side, not with the government taking care of her, not alone, we were there when she left us. I'm still making up for what it cost me to do that, and I had just bought all new race gear, which is now out dated (I had my Great Aunt pass in June) neither of whom wanted me racing any more, both needed me so I did the right thing, cancled my race seasons and spent the time with them. When it comes to our elderly, I'm far more into helping them, as they are the ones who raised, made us who we are. Children, well, that is what their parents are for. I didn't want the Government taking care of my Grandmother, don't want them taking care of my Mother and when I ge old, I don't want them taking care of me:) We should all be responsable for those who brought us into this world. I have no regrets for what I gave up to help/ bewith my Grandmother & favorite Aunt and if I had to sell all my Porsches to take care of my elderly Mother, I wouldn't hesitate.

BTW, 2 very good friends are each spending over $5K to make sure their mothers' are taken care of, their money, not the government's

well said, I was laughing out loud it was so right on.

I find it interesting that "conservatives" get so worked up about wasting money on our own citizens, our children.
Not all who are poor are so because they don't try.
Some have bad luck.
Some are just not smart.
Not all have a race car to sell to make up the difference.

Why is it it is so hard to swallow the idea of OUR government wasting money (granted that is what it does best) on helping the losers amongst us yet the idea of a trillion $'s being thrown into a desert , to help people who clearly don't want our help (now they are even buying their weapons from China) is a wise investment ?

I just don't get it .

just as long as any reference to the War in Iraq is relabeld "The War on our Children's Wallets." more evidence of the outright selfish nature and 5-minute view point that pervades our country today.

you're AOK burning, BURNING $500 billion in Iraq because it doesn't effect you now. what's your Big Plan for paying the Chinese back on their loans?

the neocon hypocrisy must be reconciled.