children first

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A conservative is only as compassionate as a vampire in a blood bank.

See this is how the Conservative attacks perfectly good government programs that aid society.

1. They target a project that's doing the job its supposed to be doing
2. They underfund the program but keep the expectations of the job at the same level as before.
3. They hire someone completely incompetent to run the program.
4. After the program repeatedly fails (Gee, I wonder why), the conservative retards point to the leftists and say "See, your philosophies can't work in society"

Why do they do this? Because the Conservative retards in government can't let the American People see that socialist programs coupled with systems of checks and balances will work. They need to maintain the pretense that all forms of Socialism and Leftist government fail when implemented. Otherwise, they'll start to lose their parasitic base that feeds the continuing cycle of stupidity.

The cycle itself looks something like this:

The Corporations (economic conservatives) thrive in deregulated environments. Then they make people work harder for less money for greater profits. This produces social and economic desperation.

The Church (spiritual conservatives) thrives in social and economic desperation and offers salvation by promoting and producing objective morality – which in turn creates enemies everywhere.

The Military (run and empowered by "patriotic" social conservatives) thrives in objective morality and through its actions, it produces fear and political power.

The Republicans (political conservatives) thrive in fear and political power and upon getting elected and re-elected, produce deregulated environments and keep socialist programs from succeeding.

"The measure of society is how they treat their weakest members"

Katrina's poor & now children.

Compassionate Conservative my ass.

=my2c
BC

"To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect. "

Sorry, I´m not willing to subscribe to TimesSelect.

Our Federal Government will be inept for years to come because Bushco LLC has hired thousands that also believe they must
drown the government in a bathtub in order to save Democracy.

The Bush "presidency" is a neocon thing first and always. His "philosophical" objections have nothing to do with "compassionate conservatism", which is nothing more than a neocon manipulation slogan with nothing behind it. His "philosophical" objection has everything do with the neocon position that any non-totalitarian government that works is bad. The neocon philosophy and goal is that Our government institutions and the work they do must be undermined, in order to destroy the People's faith and confidence in Their government, in the very idea of government Of, For and By the People. To the extend that democracy and self-government fails, to the extent that loss of faith and confidence in the idea spreads, government at the hands of the self-appointed neocon "elites" becomes enabled.

What many take as incomptence born out of mindless ideology I must takes as but another cold-blooded and calculated effort to destroy democratic self-government. Although Bush is a man of sub-normal intellect, the people who give him his marching orders are not. However intellectually dishinest they might be to a person, they are yet very smart and completely committed over the long-term to realizing their neocon vision for America. You only need to read Leo Strauss, the neocon's philosophical founder, to know what that vision is.

The neocons have patiently undermined the executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches of our government at every possible opportunity over the last 40'ish years, and creative, deliberate incompetence or "philosophical objections" are just two faces of the kinds of acts of subversion and destruction they are willing to commit in seeing to the realization of their dark dreams. The effective totality of the GOP and far too many of the "Democrats" - labling themselves as "mainstream centrists"(corporatists) - are onboard with the neocon vision.

Decrying this most recent S-CHIP outrage as a failure of "compassionate conservatism" somewhat misses the point. Of course, there is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism", we all know that. Yes, compassion and conservatism are mutually exclusive concepts or principles. Of course, one has never been able to exist in the presence of the other. And yes, the whole meme was never forwarded with any other intention than manipulating the legions of "useful idiots"into supporting neocon objectives. Yes to all of that. Acknowledge all that, but keep in mind that Bush's point, the code words "philosophical objections about how government should work" betray the influence of Straussian philosophy, which is:

That effective democratic government, which derives its authority soley from the sovereign will of the People, should never be allowed to work at all.

Compassionate conservative my a$$.

You can read NYT select articles here:
http://screwsubwalls.blogspot.com/

Oooh, Lucy B, thank you! A good resource, that!

Once again, Bush proves that you cannot empathize in areas where you have no experience. His skank daughters have the best healthcare for any STD they might contract, and access to any abortions they may have had.

If you never experienced having no access to health care as a child, you don't know what it's like. This is Bush's problem, plain and simple.

But...you'd like to have a beer with him, wouldn't you? Thank you to the 59 million Americans (and Diebold) who felt that putting this ShrubNut in the White House not once, but TWICE - was a VERY GOOD IDEA!

This nation is suffering because of your vote for this guy because "he's the type you could go out and have a beer with."

My parents always taught me to be particular with whom I kept company, and that included whomever I chose to have a drink with. And it damned sure wouldn't be someone like Gee Shrubya. His conversation alone would have me reaching for a fifth of whatever alcoholic beverage was handy.

Watch how passionate George Bush is about children NOT having more insurance.

the 4th Reich is rising @ 7:

"To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect. "

Sorry, I´m not willing to subscribe to TimesSelect.

Two things. I'll post the whole article in another response(hope John doesn't mind .. as I can get legally and for free behind the Select wall). Second, did anyone see the sewer that is the op-ed page of the WSJ this morning? They are anti-kids as well.

4th Reich:

When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.

Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.

But President Bush says that access to care is no problem — “After all, you just go to an emergency room” — and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.

It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we’ll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.

The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage — a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.

Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.

So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?

Well, here’s what Mr. Bush said after explaining that emergency rooms provide all the health care you need: “They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through Schip; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”

Now, why should Mr. Bush fear that insuring uninsured children would lead to a further “federalization” of health care, even though nothing like that is actually in either the Senate plan or the House plan? It’s not because he thinks the plans wouldn’t work. It’s because he’s afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can’t do the same for adults.

And there you have the core of Mr. Bush’s philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it’s hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.

This sounds like a caricature, but it isn’t. The truth is that this good-is-bad philosophy has always been at the core of Republican opposition to health care reform. Thus back in 1994, William Kristol warned against passage of the Clinton health care plan “in any form,” because “its success would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas.”

But it has taken the fight over children’s health insurance to bring the perversity of this philosophy fully into view.

There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you’re afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.

And the public understands that. According to a recent Georgetown University poll, 9 in 10 Americans — including 83 percent of self-identified Republicans — support an expansion of the children’s health insurance program.

There is, it seems, more basic decency in the hearts of Americans than is dreamt of in Mr. Bush’s philosophy.

I can't believe Christopher Lee was in those terrible Star Wars movies,...

Joe Klein’s conscience @# 25

@ # 15 Lucy B already posted a link to a site where one can read NYT select articles. I´ve already checked and bookmarked it.
Nevertheless thank you very much!

Bush is a sociopathic asshole. Nothing more needs to be said.

we need to impeach these sons of bitches purely on "philosophical" grounds...NOW!

President Bush is returning to the same tried and true formula he first pioneered in Texas. That is, Bush initially fought the legislation on ideological grounds before caving to popular pressure and grudgingly accepting some version of the bill. Then, as with the Texas S-CHIP program, the Texas Patients Bill of Right and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush claimed credit for it.

for the details, see:
"S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder."

[...] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article george w bush Krugman on Bush and S-Chip » Posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, [...]

the 4th Reich is rising @ 29:

Joe Klein’s conscience @# 25

@ # 15 Lucy B already posted a link to a site where one can read NYT select articles. I´ve already checked and bookmarked it.
Nevertheless thank you very much!

Welcome. I somehow missed her post the first time. I have access to a .edu address, so I read it for free.

Come on people...if you provide healthcare to children of low income families, that means they would have a better chance of survival. With global warming, eventually Florida disappears and then you need more space for people with money, there won't be room for those kids. The middle East is a large dry patch of space and we will need it someday. Don't you think this is a good reason to kill a million Iraqi's? It will be a good model to use before we evict the Iranians.

George Bush is sadistic.He actually gets off on other peoples` suffering.From his mocking of Carla Faye Tucker:"Please don`t kill me," his blatant disrespect for Casey Sheehan and his family as well as all the troops and their families:"Let`s get this guy some legs," to his current dissing of SCHIP;he seems to derive pleasure from evil shit happening.

J Shipp,

So what that it's a tax increase? I agree that earmarks need to be eliminated. So does corporate welfare. So does tax breaks for those who least need them. However, doing all the things we could do to eliminate graft and waste, there is still a huge shortfall, such that the government runs deficits. Which tells me, we do not tax enough.

Wow. He is not the least bit concerned with scooping up even more blood to smear on his hands. Here is a man who is , not only unfit to serve in ANY public office, he is a pathological killing machine. This dude could give a shit less about any american that is not their american. When do we start using the word GENOCIDE!! Over 3500 US Soldiers, what are the stats on the other coalition forces? Nobody even knows how many of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we have killed, and what the hey, lets add a few thousand kids to the list, Bush is a GENOCIDAL DICTATOR!!!

SCHIP is just another way of funneling tax-payers' money to big business. Don't be fooled by their sappy TV ads.

We all need to push our lawmakers to support Conyers' bill, HR 676, not these half-assed programs that are still run by a bunch of greedy suits who are only accountable to their shareholders.

liz @ 28:

Krugman is lying. SCHIP belongs to our good freinds Blue Cross and Blue Shield.... so now rethink how Bush has HELPED BCBS and this all makes sense............. please people, stop accepting BS as the truth

The statutory authority for SCHIP is under Title XXI of the Social Security Act. Each state has its own regulations on how it is distributed. Last time I checked, BCBS is not its own state.

Please, stop acting like you know jack shit about anything.

No one is addressing the underlying issue here. Repugs use children as props. They use fetuses as props. They use these props to trick stupid people into feeling better for voting Repug. When an obvious contradiction between rhetoric and reality makes itself available like this, Dems need to bring out the archive tapes of children standing around repug candidates, speeches made promising protection for children, comments about the "sanctity" of life. After the mentally challenged have their memories refreshed then make the obvious point, unwanted fetuses become unwanted children, protecting children means providing ALL children with health care. Doesn't matter how many obscenity laws you pass, or child predator jails you build, if children aren't given access to quality health care, they die. Voting against health care for children is voting to let children die. It's that simple.

You won't ever see that because pointing out awkward issues like the truth doesn't play well on MSM.