Dems use of 12-year old as Absolute Moral Authority against Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion backfires

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

I am guessing the ones who have large stakes in big business. Big business see's democrats as a perfec opportunity to meld govt and business together and squeeze out their competition in the process.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

That doesnt negate the fact you are expoliting the poor to fund a middle to upper middle class health care program.

Exploiting the poor? Seems like making a poisonous product less affordable is not exploiting, it's helping in the long run. Of course clueless Republicans (redundant) are saying that if people stop smoking there won't be any money for kids healthcare. Of course if they stop smoking, the government's future healthcare liability will decrease by more than enough to pay for kids healthcare.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice to see that the truth about this kid and his family has come out.

Using a 12 year old who goes to a $20,000 a year private school to fight for a program for the poor is rather pathetic.

the fact that he goes to a private school should really be a non-issue unless you have proof that he's not getting a scholarship, financial aid, or involved in some type of work study program.

A 12yr old in work study does not fly.

The other potential issues are not questions that people will ask.

The Dems made a poor choice in their example by not looking behind the curtain.

Maybe you guys are not looking behind the surface yourself. Just because a family has a few hundred thousand in assets (if those are even paid off) doesn't mean those can't be wiped out easily by a serious accident and medical bills resulting from it. So these attacks on a 12 year old and the middle class are going to backfire on your party real bad.

That's what insurance is for....to cover bills for stuff like this. The parents, despite clearly having the means to do so, chose NOT to purchase insurance for their kids either privately or through their business (where they would have enjoyed a discounted rate through various group plans). Instead, they chose to go on the government dole taking resources AWAY from children who truly need help.

You have not showed if they have the means. Yeah, maybe they have the means if they sell their business and home, and even then it's not clear how much they owe on those assets.
All you have presented is a generic quote for health insurance, which may not be available to them due to preexisting conditions and the aftermath of the kid's accident. You are judging this 12 year old and his middle class family without knowing anything about them.

Obviously they are making enough money to send their kids to an exclusive and expensive school so they are earning more money than just 45K a year. Likely, since he owns a business, they pay themselves the minimal salary and take the rest in disbursements from their company. It's a common practice. I did it when I owned a company. If they wanted to they could send their kids to a slighly cheaper private school and easily afford the insurance.

This is yet another example of how the politicians spin a sad sap story to garner support for a pet project and, as is often the case, it's not the part of the story they tell us, it's the part they leave out.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

Well, who is vetoing healthcare for children? Don't want to hear that argument, grow an conscious.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

That doesnt negate the fact you are expoliting the poor to fund a middle to upper middle class health care program.

Exploiting the poor? Seems like making a poisonous product less affordable is not exploiting, it's helping in the long run. Of course clueless Republicans (redundant) are saying that if people stop smoking there won't be any money for kids healthcare. Of course if they stop smoking, the government's future healthcare liability will decrease by more than enough to pay for kids healthcare.

Taxing a product that is addictive is exploiting. If the democrats really cared about it being poisonous they would outlaw the things. But you wont see that as they know if they do such a thing, the cash cow is gone.

Your zero sum theory fails and always will. Smokers will take up eating instead and increase our obesity rates. What will you and your authoritarians on the left do then? Tax eating?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

That doesnt negate the fact you are expoliting the poor to fund a middle to upper middle class health care program.

Exploiting the poor? Seems like making a poisonous product less affordable is not exploiting, it's helping in the long run. Of course clueless Republicans (redundant) are saying that if people stop smoking there won't be any money for kids healthcare. Of course if they stop smoking, the government's future healthcare liability will decrease by more than enough to pay for kids healthcare.

No, it's called a political ploy. "Hey, we're going to pay for this expansion by taxing this nasty habit, it's OK!" That's along with the accounting tricks that sees funding in the final year of the Dem S-CHIP plan fall to but a fraction of the previous year's costs. This forces an early reauthorization (and further expansion) and reduces the overall 'projected' cost of the expansion.

This on top of exploiting kids as political props.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Guess you failed to remember he did so with a non-rubber stamped republican congress.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

Well, who is vetoing healthcare for children? Don't want to hear that argument, grow an conscious.

The President had already informed the Dems that he would reauthorize the existing plan with slight modification to help target POOR kids and give it a $5 billion dollar increase.

Instead, the Dems waited until the last possible moment to send a huge expansion of the program to the President and trotted out children to claim that Bush was denying them healthcare. Sounds like a political ploy to expand a government program beyond what it is was meant for in order to gain power and to increase the creep of socialized health care.

If the Dems had this wonderful, altruistic conscious that you are so eager to tout, perhaps they would work on making health care more affordable through tax breaks and removing all the mandates and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

Bwahahahaah. GOP balanced the budget? Riight? Of course before Clinton came in there was no balanced budget, and as soon as Clinton left, the balanced budget disappeared with him. So yeah, no correlation between a Clinton in the White House and a balanced budget. :roll:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

Bwahahahaah. GOP balanced the budget? Riight? Of course before Clinton came in there was no balanced budget, and as soon as Clinton left, the balanced budget disappeared with him. So yeah, no correlation between a Clinton in the White House and a balanced budget. :roll:

FYI - The President does not control the budget. The Congress does. At the time, Congress was controlled by the Republicans and a very fiscal conservative Newt Gingrich. I don't care for Newt as a person but he was a true fiscal conservative and submitting a balanced budget for the President to sign was his and the rest of that Congress' doing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

Bwahahahaah. GOP balanced the budget? Riight? Of course before Clinton came in there was no balanced budget, and as soon as Clinton left, the balanced budget disappeared with him. So yeah, no correlation between a Clinton in the White House and a balanced budget. :roll:

You do realize Clinton didnt balance the budget every year he was president right? The balanced budget disappeared for many reasons and to put that squarly on Bush's shoulders is being disengenuious. The stock market collapse and 9-11 sent our economy into a recession which shrank revenues when we needed them most.

Anyways that is off topic, but not surprising you want to change subjects as you are getting smacked around on the current topic.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

Well, who is vetoing healthcare for children? Don't want to hear that argument, grow an conscious.

The President had already informed the Dems that he would reauthorize the existing plan with slight modification to help target POOR kids and give it a $5 billion dollar increase.

Instead, the Dems waited until the last possible moment to send this to the President and trotted out children to claim that Bush was denying them healthcare. Sounds like a political ploy to expand a government program beyond what it is was meant for in order to gain power and to increase the creep of socialized health care.

If the Dems had this wonderful, altruistic conscious that you are so eager to tout, perhaps they would work on making health care more affordable through tax breaks and removing all the mandates and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance?

Bush needs to sign the healthcare bill for poor children that the Congress sent him, or the GOP has to override the veto. This is the party that spent hundreds of billions on Iraq and hundreds of billions for biggest expansion of Medicare. Now all of the sudden they've come to Jesus and are using poor children to send a political message on spending to their base? Give me a break. You lost Congress, you don't get to write laws. You can obstruct healthcare from going to poor children, but you will pay the price in politics and public opinion for that stand.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

Bwahahahaah. GOP balanced the budget? Riight? Of course before Clinton came in there was no balanced budget, and as soon as Clinton left, the balanced budget disappeared with him. So yeah, no correlation between a Clinton in the White House and a balanced budget. :roll:

You do realize Clinton didnt balance the budget every year he was president right? The balanced budget disappeared for many reasons and to put that squarly on Bush's shoulders is being disengenuious. The stock market collapse and 9-11 sent our economy into a recession which shrank revenues when we needed them most.

Anyways that is off topic, but not surprising you want to change subjects as you are getting smacked around on the current topic.

If you choose to be in denial, that is your call. Bottom line is Clinton ran the budget well, even the Republican Greenspan gives him that. Bush started cutting taxes and racking up deficits well before 9/11. 9/11 was just an excuse to escalate it to a whole new level. GOP cut taxes at a time when we have to pay for war, for crying out loud, how much more fiscally irresponsible can you get?

 

[nageov3t]

honest question, but would Bush's proposed increase have even kept up with population growth?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

Well, who is vetoing healthcare for children? Don't want to hear that argument, grow an conscious.

The President had already informed the Dems that he would reauthorize the existing plan with slight modification to help target POOR kids and give it a $5 billion dollar increase.

Instead, the Dems waited until the last possible moment to send this to the President and trotted out children to claim that Bush was denying them healthcare. Sounds like a political ploy to expand a government program beyond what it is was meant for in order to gain power and to increase the creep of socialized health care.

If the Dems had this wonderful, altruistic conscious that you are so eager to tout, perhaps they would work on making health care more affordable through tax breaks and removing all the mandates and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance?

Bush needs to sign the healthcare bill for poor children that the Congress sent him, or the GOP has to override the veto. This is the party that spent hundreds of billions on Iraq and hundreds of billions for biggest expansion of Medicare. Now all of the sudden they've come to Jesus and are using poor children to send a political message on spending to their base? Give me a break. You lost Congress, you don't get to write laws. You can obstruct healthcare from going to poor children, but you will pay the price in politics and public opinion for that stand.

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
This kid is going to be paying for all the debt republicans racked up, but they don't want to keep him healthy enough to do it.
It's disgusting.

Hey bunkie, pretty sure democrats crafted this years budget. The same budget that saw increases across the board and didnt balance.

You cant blame the republicans from now on and especially not next year when they have the WH as well.

Democrats are doing pay go. It's Republican passed deficits that are growing debt now.

O really? Well looks like you have all the excuses then lol

Fact is the dems didnt balance the budget any better than republicans. And when Hillary gets into the house next year and gets her hillary care rubber stamped by a democrat congress. The budget wont look any better.

Riight, didn't we hear same tripe when Bill Clinton got elected. Remember Perot and his charts. Yet it was Clinton who balanced that budget.

Are you naive or STILL in denial? It was a GOP congress that balanced the budget. Spin it any way you want, you cant change that fact. It's kind of like Bill said "Oh SNAP! A balanced budget! Hell yeah I'll sign it AND take the credit!"

Please.

Bwahahahaah. GOP balanced the budget? Riight? Of course before Clinton came in there was no balanced budget, and as soon as Clinton left, the balanced budget disappeared with him. So yeah, no correlation between a Clinton in the White House and a balanced budget. :roll:

You do realize Clinton didnt balance the budget every year he was president right? The balanced budget disappeared for many reasons and to put that squarly on Bush's shoulders is being disengenuious. The stock market collapse and 9-11 sent our economy into a recession which shrank revenues when we needed them most.

Anyways that is off topic, but not surprising you want to change subjects as you are getting smacked around on the current topic.

If you choose to be in denial, that is your call. Bottom line is Clinton ran the budget well, even the Republican Greenspan gives him that. Bush started cutting taxes and racking up deficits well before 9/11. 9/11 was just an excuse to escalate it to a whole new level. GOP cut taxes at a time when we have to pay for war, for crying out loud, how much more fiscally irresponsible can you get?

How the hell can Bush run deficits before 9-11 when Clinton signed the budget from Oct 00 to Oct 01? Denial? Look in the effing mirror lol

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Poor smokers will only fund it while they keep smoking. Once they quit, we'll get your tax privileged hedge fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us.

Interestingly, hedge fund managers overwhelmingly donate to Dem causes and candidates.

The ones with a conscience do. There was one on CNBC this morning saying why the hell am I paying cap gains tax rates on ordinary income from management fees?

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.

Well, who is vetoing healthcare for children? Don't want to hear that argument, grow an conscious.

The President had already informed the Dems that he would reauthorize the existing plan with slight modification to help target POOR kids and give it a $5 billion dollar increase.

Instead, the Dems waited until the last possible moment to send this to the President and trotted out children to claim that Bush was denying them healthcare. Sounds like a political ploy to expand a government program beyond what it is was meant for in order to gain power and to increase the creep of socialized health care.

If the Dems had this wonderful, altruistic conscious that you are so eager to tout, perhaps they would work on making health care more affordable through tax breaks and removing all the mandates and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance?

Bush needs to sign the healthcare bill for poor children that the Congress sent him, or the GOP has to override the veto. This is the party that spent hundreds of billions on Iraq and hundreds of billions for biggest expansion of Medicare. Now all of the sudden they've come to Jesus and are using poor children to send a political message on spending to their base? Give me a break. You lost Congress, you don't get to write laws. You can obstruct healthcare from going to poor children, but you will pay the price in politics and public opinion for that stand.

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

I didn't say he doesn't have authority to obstruct. Just like GOP has authority to not override the veto. But there is a political price to pay for obstructing healthcare to poor kids. A big one.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481
honest question, but would Bush's proposed increase have even kept up with population growth?

We are seeing a 1-3% increase in population. Most of this is from immigration. I dont know all the specifics of the original bill. But my understanding is it was a 30 billion a year program and bush was willing to move it to 35 billion a year or a ~15% increase in funding. That is well above inflation and population growth.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't say he doesn't have authority to obstruct. Just like GOP has authority to not override the veto. But there is a political price to pay for obstructing healthcare to poor kids. A big one.

You're right, too bad its the Dems playing political games with healthcare for poor kids so they can expand their power base and continue the creep of socialized healthcare.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
honest question, but would Bush's proposed increase have even kept up with population growth?

We are seeing a 1-3% increase in population. Most of this is from immigration. I dont know all the specifics of the original bill. But my understanding is it was a 30 billion a year program and bush was willing to move it to 35 billion a year or a ~15% increase in funding. That is well above inflation and population growth.

No it's not. Have you seen what healthcare inflation has been in the last few years. It's out of control. Healthcare bill needs to keep up with healthcare prices and population growth. 35Billion is nothing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

I didn't say he doesn't have authority to obstruct. Just like GOP has authority to not override the veto. But there is a political price to pay for obstructing healthcare to poor kids. A big one.

I think you over estimate the populations willingness to tolerate an expanded UHC system. In most polls the avg american does not want govt running their health care. By vetoing this backhanded attempt at UHC for people under 25 debates rage. By debating the issue the truth starts to trickle out. People see what the true intent of the bill was and at the end of the day let their senator know to no vote for such a proposal.

People dont trust govt to run their health care in this country yet. And rightfully so. Everyday we see what a mess govt has made of nearly everything it touches.

Public school has been terrible for 30 years
Disaster recovery for events like Katrina screwed up.
Wasteful spending on pet projects
Unable to control borders
Unable to stop 9-11
Unable to find WMD in Iraq


The list can go on and on. People dont trust the politicians to do anything right. So they dont want them running the one thing we take very seriously, healthcare, at least not yet.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't say he doesn't have authority to obstruct. Just like GOP has authority to not override the veto. But there is a political price to pay for obstructing healthcare to poor kids. A big one.

You're right, too bad its the Dems playing political games with healthcare for poor kids so they can expand their power base and continue the creep of socialized healthcare.

I can only encourage this sort of self delusion in the GOP. With this kind of self destructive behavior, we'll get Hillary in the White House, and filibuster proof Congress, and get some nice healthcare bills passed that will make SCHIP expansion look like small potatoes. The fact that the GOP chose to make a stand on fighting healthcare for poor kids and attacking 12 year olds and middle class families only helps facilitate that, and I can only support your party taking this position.