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

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The parents are rich...they are screwing the system...didnt you read the article?

The article is OUTRAGEOUSLY lying.

1. Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2. His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3. They bought their "lavish house" sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4. Last year, the Frost?s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5. The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/...ttacking-graeme-frost/

This is the sort of thing tha happens when you quote articles from Free Republic.

While Freep might be worthless as a news source though, I highly suggest going and reading the comments on contentious issues if you're bored. The level of insanity on that board is just hilarious.

Yeah Freeper's and Michelle Malkin have a new crusade to focus to defend Bush's veto and/or detract from always terrible news emanating from Washington pretty much everyday.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.[/quote]

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.[/quote]

If its not kids its the elderly. Whats the cry of Democrats for the last 20 years? "Elect Republicans and your Social Security will disappear!" Same shit, different pawn. But in all fairness, both sides use this tactic.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

If its not kids its the elderly. Whats the cry of Democrats for the last 20 years? "Elect Republicans and your Social Security will disappear!" Same shit, different pawn. But in all fairness, both sides use this tactic.[/quote]

God forbid a party would care about real people instead of ideology. I like when politicians focus on the people. It's easy to stand for small government, in theory, but it impacts real people in real ways, like children and seniors. Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

That would be because the current ponzi scheme of Social Security is failing and inching towards bankruptcy as the number of recipients outgrows the number of people paying into the system. God forbid that we'd want to move people away from a system like that that barely gives you a return equal to inflation to a system that potentially could see a return of 7% or more.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

If its not kids its the elderly. Whats the cry of Democrats for the last 20 years? "Elect Republicans and your Social Security will disappear!" Same shit, different pawn. But in all fairness, both sides use this tactic.

God forbid a party would care about real people instead of ideology. I like when politicians focus on the people. It's easy to stand for small government, in theory, but it impacts real people in real ways, like children and seniors. Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.[/quote]

And Democrats are the champions of the people? Give me a fucking break. They are financed by PAC's as much as the GOP is.

As far as privatizing SS, you obviously dont understand it. Funds would be invested privately, but still remain in government oversight. But, leave it to wingnut liberals like you to slant it to your views.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

And perhaps they are making a statement for those families in similar circumstances but that make only $10,000 more and would only be covered under the new version of SCHIP? I think you need to find better targets to loathe than a low income family with disabled children.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

That would be because the current ponzi scheme of Social Security is failing and inching towards bankruptcy as the number of recipients outgrows the number of people paying into the system. God forbid that we'd want to move people away from a system like that that barely gives you a return equal to inflation to a system that potentially could see a return of 7% or more.

Well, let's raise interest rates on SS bonds to 7%. The only reason it's inflation return is because Republicans want to borrow money from it cheap to pay for taxcuts for the rich.
And BTW, You just made my point as to why seniors are scared that Republicans want to eliminate SS. BECAUSE THEY DO.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

And perhaps they are making a statement for those families in similar circumstances but that make only $10,000 more and would only be covered under the new version of SCHIP? I think you need to find better targets to loathe than a low income family with disabled children.

Speaking as a father who doesn't make much more than this couple. Speaking as a father with two children who barely made it into this world and both came out with numerous health problems themselves. Speaking as a father that scrimps, saves, makes sacrifices so that I make sure I have enough money to take care of my family. Speaking as a father that sees a significant portion of my income eaten up in taxes at the federal, state, and local level.

Yeah, I think I can certainly disagree with the Frost's use of children as political props to expand socialized medicine in this country. I've watched government interference, malfeasance, and incompetence drive up the cost of health care over the last couple of decades. I can't accept that the solution is....more government.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

That would be because the current ponzi scheme of Social Security is failing and inching towards bankruptcy as the number of recipients outgrows the number of people paying into the system. God forbid that we'd want to move people away from a system like that that barely gives you a return equal to inflation to a system that potentially could see a return of 7% or more.

Well, let's raise interest rates on SS bonds to 7%. The only reason it's inflation return is because Republicans want to borrow money from it cheap to pay for taxcuts for the rich.
And BTW, You just made my point as to why seniors are scared that Republicans want to eliminate SS. BECAUSE THEY DO.

Yes, but you are the Dems are attributing the reasoning behind moving away from SS as due to Republicans, conservatives, and others that support the move being mean-spirited, hateful, or evil. The truth is, those that don't like SS want to replace it with something that is better, something that isn't a ponzi scheme, and something that provides a good return for the money invested.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

That would be because the current ponzi scheme of Social Security is failing and inching towards bankruptcy as the number of recipients outgrows the number of people paying into the system. God forbid that we'd want to move people away from a system like that that barely gives you a return equal to inflation to a system that potentially could see a return of 7% or more.

Well, let's raise interest rates on SS bonds to 7%. The only reason it's inflation return is because Republicans want to borrow money from it cheap to pay for taxcuts for the rich.
And BTW, You just made my point as to why seniors are scared that Republicans want to eliminate SS. BECAUSE THEY DO.

Yes, but you are the Dems are attributing the reasoning behind moving away from SS as due to Republicans, conservatives, and others that support the move being mean-spirited, hateful, or evil. The truth is, those that don't like SS want to replace it with something that is better, something that isn't a ponzi scheme, and something that provides a good return for the money invested.

Not to mention the feds wont be able to raid private accounts...THAT IMO is a huge deal.

 

[piasabird]

Your mommy says 2 wrongs make a right?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Your mommy says 2 wrongs make a right?

Depends on the parents. Didnt you know there is no wrong and right? It's all subjective and we need to be flexible and embrace our differences. Just as there are no losers in the world.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

HOWEVER, the fact that the kid's parents can afford to send both of them to a $20k a year/each private school, have a home worth half a million, own their own apparently successful business and the property it operates from yet choose NOT to spend money on their own health care and go on the government dole through obvious income tax evasion tricks instead is loathsome.

Of course no one is bashing the kid, that's a strawman. But do you still find the family loathsome?

For allowing their son to be used as a political prop to expand the S-CHIP when they are already qualified under Bush's proposal? Yes.

And I recall Bush & Co (sorry, it's on topic) bringing out dozens of "snowflake children" for photo ops when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. Any generalized statement about Dems using children is only fair if it is recognized all politicians do this.

See my previous statement -
"I feel bad for the kids in this because they are being used as political footballs."

That is meant as a general statement covering any use of children as political props.

And perhaps they are making a statement for those families in similar circumstances but that make only $10,000 more and would only be covered under the new version of SCHIP? I think you need to find better targets to loathe than a low income family with disabled children.

Speaking as a father who doesn't make much more than this couple. Speaking as a father with two children who barely made it into this world and both came out with numerous health problems themselves. Speaking as a father that scrimps, saves, makes sacrifices so that I make sure I have enough money to take care of my family. Speaking as a father that sees a significant portion of my income eaten up in taxes at the federal, state, and local level.

Yeah, I think I can certainly disagree with the Frost's use of children as political props to expand socialized medicine in this country. I've watched government interference, malfeasance, and incompetence drive up the cost of health care over the last couple of decades. I can't accept that the solution is....more government.

There you go. You disagree with their decision. You don't need to loathe them. And if, as the independent sources claim, that 70% of kids covered by the new bill would be from families making less than $43,000 a year, then I'm for granting them coverage, also something you are free to disagree with without loathing me. I don't loathe you for wanting to deny health coverage to millions of kids. How tax money is spent should certainly be a valid concern of all citizens.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
There you go. You disagree with their decision. You don't need to loathe them. And if, as the independent sources claim, that 70% of kids covered by the new bill would be from families making less than $43,000 a year, then I'm for granting them coverage, also something you are free to disagree with without loathing me. I don't loathe you for wanting to deny health coverage to millions of kids. How tax money is spent should certainly be a valid concern of all citizens.

Your absolutely correct....and moving the middle class to the government teat...exchanging liberty for security...should be the last thing tax money should be spent on.

 

[GoPackGo]

maybe daddy should get a second job...or find one that offers healthcare

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey, OP and his coterie, can we get a response, any response to this, other than attacking the source? Can you dispute any of this?

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their ?lavish house? sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

They $45K, plus $14.5K (private aid from school), plus $23K (state paid tuition) for a total of of $82.5K.

Their inexpensive home is almost paid off. What's the mortage on a $55K home? A few hundred bucks a month? They own their own business, how much is it worth?

They would seem to have a fair amount of discretionary income. Childrens' health insurance is not expensive from what I can see. The complicatig factor may be the re-existing conditions, but not enough data about that.

They make $45K and get that amount doubled by (likely tax-free) free benefits?

Why can't I get that?

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans do want to replace SS with some sort of privatized system, so yes, SS would disappear. So it's not sh!t, it's the real deal.

That would be because the current ponzi scheme of Social Security is failing and inching towards bankruptcy as the number of recipients outgrows the number of people paying into the system. God forbid that we'd want to move people away from a system like that that barely gives you a return equal to inflation to a system that potentially could see a return of 7% or more.

Well, let's raise interest rates on SS bonds to 7%. The only reason it's inflation return is because Republicans want to borrow money from it cheap to pay for taxcuts for the rich.
And BTW, You just made my point as to why seniors are scared that Republicans want to eliminate SS. BECAUSE THEY DO.

Yes, but you are the Dems are attributing the reasoning behind moving away from SS as due to Republicans, conservatives, and others that support the move being mean-spirited, hateful, or evil. The truth is, those that don't like SS want to replace it with something that is better, something that isn't a ponzi scheme, and something that provides a good return for the money invested.

Not to mention the feds wont be able to raid private accounts...THAT IMO is a huge deal.

Republicans are the ones raiding current SS trustfund to pay for their deficit spending. They can stop that now, they don't need SS reform for that. Both of your problems with SS can be rectified now by investing SS trustfund in higher duration bonds, and repaying those bonds when they are due. Americans aren't stupid, they know what Republican stand on SS is, they don't support it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey, OP and his coterie, can we get a response, any response to this, other than attacking the source? Can you dispute any of this?

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their ?lavish house? sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

They $45K, plus $14.5K (private aid from school), plus $23K (state paid tuition) for a total of of $82.5K.

Their inexpensive home is almost paid off. What's the mortage on a $55K home? A few hundred bucks a month? They own their own business, how much is it worth?

They would seem to have a fair amount of discretionary income. Childrens' health insurance is not expensive from what I can see. The complicatig factor may be the re-existing conditions, but not enough data about that.

They make $45K and get that amount doubled by (likely tax-free) free benefits?

Why can't I get that?

Fern

Are you on crack? The 14.5K aid from the school and 23K state paid tuition is not their income. It is either discount that school offers them because they are poor or it goes directly from state to the school. Guess what, my college was $40K per year, but it was all financial aid, and I was dirt poor the entire time. I certainly didn't have $40K income. That's like saying someone with 3 kids in public school has $30K more income because the state spends $10K per kid on their education.

 

[theeedude]

Capitol Feud: A 12-Year-Old is the Fodder

The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often perilous technique. And in this case, the discourse has been anything but polite.

The critics accused Graeme?s father, Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an expensive private school. And they asserted that the family?s home had undergone extensive remodeling, and that its market value could exceed $400,000.

One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme?s mother, Bonnie, warned: ?Lie down with dogs, and expect to get fleas.? As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family?s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.

In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. ?We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,? Mrs. Frost said.

?We work hard, we?re honest, we pay our taxes,? Mr. Frost said, adding, ?There are hard-working families that really need affordable health insurance.?

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off.

An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.

But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

?The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,? Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. ?Maryland?s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don?t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.?

As for accusations that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog, ?If you don?t want questions, don?t foist these children onto the public stage.?

Mr. and Mrs. Frost said they were bothered by the assertion that they lacked health coverage by their own choice.

?That is not true at all,? Mrs. Frost said. ?Basically all these naysayers need to lay the facts out on the page, and say, ?How could a family be able to do this?? S-chip is a stopgap.?

 

[Phokus]

I agree with doing away with S-Chip, but i find it absolutely disgusting to be rifling through the family's lives and posting lies and half truths to discredit the family like that, along with their personal information. That's a line that nobody should cross. If their kids go to expensive private schools ON SCHOLARSHIP and you imply that they 'can afford' to go to such schools with their own money, that's plain dishonest.

Queasy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I agree with doing away with S-Chip, but i find it absolutely disgusting to be rifling through the family's lives and posting lies and half truths to discredit the family like that, along with their personal information. That's a line that nobody should cross. If their kids go to expensive private schools ON SCHOLARSHIP and you imply that they 'can afford' to go to such schools with their own money, that's plain dishonest.

Queasy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not in the least. Sorry. You can call me whatever you wish but if the Dems are going to drag a kid out and write out a policy speech for him to read to rebut the President's radio address and use his family as an excuse to expand S-CHIP when they already qualify for it under the existing terms, they should expect some scrutiny. You don't offer this family up as a case study and then say you can't study their situation.

The situation was not helped at all by newspapers doing profiles on the family that under-reported their situation that left many questions open. This left it to others to try and fill in the blanks.

The ones that should be ashamed are the Dem leaders who are using this boy and his family as ideological shields to shut down debate on whether or not S-CHIP should be expanded. The parents should additionally be ashamed for allowing their child to be used in such a matter.

And as we learn more in the follow-up stories that the media has provided on the Frost's more questions beg to be answered. There was an article in the Sun that said that the mother works part-time and the father works 'intermittently'. Why? As a father myself, I don't think I could ever allow myself to be put in a situation where I only worked intermittently. I'd have a job somewhere, somehow that provided some modicum of income and that would help me provide insurance for my family.

 

[sandorski]

Suggested title change: Dems use of 12-year old as Absolute Moral Authority against Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion backfires accusation, Backfires

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
I agree with doing away with S-Chip, but i find it absolutely disgusting to be rifling through the family's lives and posting lies and half truths to discredit the family like that, along with their personal information. That's a line that nobody should cross. If their kids go to expensive private schools ON SCHOLARSHIP and you imply that they 'can afford' to go to such schools with their own money, that's plain dishonest.

Queasy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not in the least. Sorry. You can call me whatever you wish but if the Dems are going to drag a kid out and write out a policy speech for him to read to rebut the President's radio address and use his family as an excuse to expand S-CHIP when they already qualify for it under the existing terms, they should expect some scrutiny. You don't offer this family up as a case study and then say you can't study their situation.

The situation was not helped at all by newspapers doing profiles on the family that under-reported their situation that left many questions open. This left it to others to try and fill in the blanks.

The ones that should be ashamed are the Dem leaders who are using this boy and his family as ideological shields to shut down debate on whether or not S-CHIP should be expanded. The parents should additionally be ashamed for allowing their child to be used in such a matter.

And as we learn more in the follow-up stories that the media has provided on the Frost's more questions beg to be answered. There was an article in the Sun that said that the mother works part-time and the father works 'intermittently'. Why? As a father myself, I don't think I could ever allow myself to be put in a situation where I only worked intermittently. I'd have a job somewhere, somehow that provided some modicum of income and that would help me provide insurance for my family.

So that makes it ok for the rightwing blogosphere to lie and use halftruths on the families?

Exhibit A:

http://corner.nationalreview.c...ZlNDNjZTlhOGU3NjNlZDA=

they have a 3,000-sq-ft home on a street where a 2,000-sq-ft home recently sold for half a million dollars; he was able to afford to send two children simultaneously to a $20,000-a-year private school; his father and grandfather were successful New York designers and architects; etc. This is apparently the new definition of "working families":

They're reporting it like they bought their house for several hundred thousands dollars and they send their kids to those schools out of their own pockets. That's beyond dishonest and quite frankly disgusting. This behavior is so reprehensible, even people from your own party are recoiling in disgust:

I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can?t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don?t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people?s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.

I?m registering Independent tomorrow.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
I agree with doing away with S-Chip, but i find it absolutely disgusting to be rifling through the family's lives and posting lies and half truths to discredit the family like that, along with their personal information. That's a line that nobody should cross. If their kids go to expensive private schools ON SCHOLARSHIP and you imply that they 'can afford' to go to such schools with their own money, that's plain dishonest.

Queasy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not in the least. Sorry. You can call me whatever you wish but if the Dems are going to drag a kid out and write out a policy speech for him to read to rebut the President's radio address and use his family as an excuse to expand S-CHIP when they already qualify for it under the existing terms, they should expect some scrutiny. You don't offer this family up as a case study and then say you can't study their situation.

The situation was not helped at all by newspapers doing profiles on the family that under-reported their situation that left many questions open. This left it to others to try and fill in the blanks.

The ones that should be ashamed are the Dem leaders who are using this boy and his family as ideological shields to shut down debate on whether or not S-CHIP should be expanded. The parents should additionally be ashamed for allowing their child to be used in such a matter.

And as we learn more in the follow-up stories that the media has provided on the Frost's more questions beg to be answered. There was an article in the Sun that said that the mother works part-time and the father works 'intermittently'. Why? As a father myself, I don't think I could ever allow myself to be put in a situation where I only worked intermittently. I'd have a job somewhere, somehow that provided some modicum of income and that would help me provide insurance for my family.

So that makes it ok for the rightwing blogosphere to lie and use halftruths on the families?

Exhibit A:

http://corner.nationalreview.c...ZlNDNjZTlhOGU3NjNlZDA=

they have a 3,000-sq-ft home on a street where a 2,000-sq-ft home recently sold for half a million dollars; he was able to afford to send two children simultaneously to a $20,000-a-year private school; his father and grandfather were successful New York designers and architects; etc. This is apparently the new definition of "working families":

They're reporting it like they bought their house for several hundred thousands dollars and they send their kids to those schools out of their own pockets. That's beyond dishonest and quite frankly disgusting. This behavior is so reprehensible, even people from your own party are recoiling in disgust:

I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can?t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don?t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people?s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.

I?m registering Independent tomorrow.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827

I'm an independent btw. Not a Republican.

Anyways, the Steyn article you linked was before the additional information about the family came out. It was pretty much the initial reaction. He's since posted follow-ups about the correct information yet still stands by his original assertions beyond the initial incorrect family financial information.

If the Dems are going to hold up this family as a case-study of why SCHIP then more details should be given about them....not less. Grown-ups shouldn't be hiding behind 12-year olds as shields against criticism. The speech that was given to the 12-year old to read was filled with half-truths and lies. Bush was not trying to deny his family health coverage. The family already qualified for S-CHIP under the existing guidelines and would continue to do so under Bush re-authorizing the existing plan.

Two wrongs don't make a right but this is an excellent example of why politicians of all stripes should stop using children and families as political footballs and let their ideas and proposals stand on their own merits.