October 03, 2007 12:55 PM
S-CHIP veto based on errors of fact and logic
Following up on an earlier item, the president’s decision to veto a bipartisan bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is scandalous, but it’s not without a foundation. Bush didn’t just reject the expansion out of some kind of craven disgust for children’s health; he’s offered specific policy rationales for rejecting the legislation.
The problem, of course, is that these rationales happen to be spectacularly wrong.
What's worse than undermining healthcare for kids for no reason? Undermining healthcare for kids for demonstrably false reasons.
Here's Bush's next expected step: A TAX INCREASE ON UNINSURED CHILDREN TO SUBSIDIZE TOBACCO ADS
OT but I'm sure you'll all like this. A Minnesota Judge refused to Craig's bid to withdrawal his guilty plea.
impeach them already
start here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow
The only way you could convince him that he's wrong is if you find a way to reverse his lobotomy.
Are you actually suggesting that Bush got something WRONG!?
Now I'm disillusioned.
2 trillion for a war but not a penny more for health care. The logic of the Syphilis infected former baseball team owner
He needs a right good kick in the nardy manjunk.
Slightly off-topic, but I had to share this. It's from ESPN.com baseball writer Jerry Crasnick. It's simply further evidence that Commander Bunnypants is an inveterate chronic screw-up, and that history will indeed judge him ... as a miserable loser and failure, from baseball ownership to pResidential governance:
-----
"I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right." -- Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote.
"Time will tell. We believe in our research and that the positives far outweigh the negatives." -- Milwaukee Brewers president and acting commissioner Bud Selig after owners approved the new system 14 years ago.
Judging from their track records on this one, maybe Selig should take a crack at sorting out that nettlesome Iraq situation and the president should forget about baseball and events in Baghdad and turn his attention to health care.
-----
Duhbya, always on the short end of the stick. And always shielded and pampered and ultimately rescued by his minions, enablers and sycophants ...
When you name anything "S-CHIP", then expect it to be vetoed. It just sounds like some kind of mandatory child tracking chip implanted into children... Who the hell named this bill anyhow?
I must disagree with Mr. Benen on a small point. bush knew exactly what he was doing when he vetoed the SCHIP bill. The given explanation for the veto, however, was full of fabricated "facts" and nonsensical, even nonexistent "logic".
NPR did a program yesterday about the bs that bush and repubs were spouting about the downside of the program.
Orin Hatch said the president must have been given bad advice. If that's the case, it sure as hell wasn't the first time. Maybe he needs new advisers.
The rethuglican talking points on SCHIP are lies and more damned lies.(so what's new)
SCHIP is not for poor kids. Poor kids have Medicaid. SCHIP is for middle income kids whose parents cannot afford insurance.
And yet I heard rethugs in the House this AM on c-span say SCHIP is for the poor. Ballooney!
Bush vetoed this because he is afraid of universal health care. He is afraid. Good on him. Let him stay afraid. Universal health care will happen, maybe even faster because of the craven way he vetoed this bill -- holed up like some beast he is. People aren't stoopid, Mr. Deciderman. Not as stoopid as you think. (And I spelled stoopid like that on purpose.)
He didnt get it wrong. He didnt make his decision based on 'logic'. His 'phoney' explanation was flawed - but it was a lie from the beginning in any case.
These people lament the new deal. These people lament the empowerment of the common man. These people lament the loss (due to FDR) of the rich poor gulf.
These people are not americans in any way that I understand. They are virtual royalists - democracy is of little use to them except as impediment.
These people are (my concocted notion) zero sum social darwinists (ZSSD's). They are about 'winning' (getting their way and what they want). They are thugs. They will do anything to win - winning is righteous and makes all that leads to it righteous in course.
At the moment they are using government to achieve their ends (and they are achieving them - they neither care what you think or will listen). They will use any lever they have at hand to move their world into a preferred orbit - with or without your consent.
These people need to be known for who they are. They are predators.
Making good on his threat to block the additional $35 billion in funding over five years to boost the number of children covered under S-CHIP from 6.6 million to 10 million, Bush achieved three objectives - the proverbial hat trick - in one stroke of his veto pen.
First, the President teed up "socialized medicine" as the definitive 2008 GOP talking point in response to any new health care initiatives coming from the Democratic Party. Second, he extended the Republicans' campaign of obstructionism at all costs, blocking Democratic successes at any cost in the hope of painting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of a "do-nothing" Congress. And last, George W. Bush kept intact his consistent record of fierce opposition to the popular children's health insurance program dating back to his days as Governor of Texas.
For the details, see:
"Bush's Hat Trick with S-CHIP Veto."
I'll support S-CHIP when they remove the cigarette, alcohol, and $3 cigar taxes from the bill.
the train of thought @ 9:
Children's Health Insurance Program -- CHIP. The S is for Suplimentary, I think. So SCHIP is just another acronym. No one person named it.
Jo @ 16:
Really? I thought it was named for Dr. Stanley Chipperski.
Jugomugo @ 15:
Yeah, kids need those things more than health care. Nice point.
Well, he's going to burn in hell for all the evil he's done in his life, so what's one more egregious lie and the veto of a bill for children's health care? Did you notice that the Chamber of Commerce folks yesterday did not look happy? I'd enjoy watching him in free-fall, except I'm afraid he's going to take us all with him.
Angry One @ 14:
You're right.
As a note - we need to take back language. We need to STOP using their definitions.
The police, fire department, military etc are all major industries that are socialized. We need to identify that as a good thing - to have public control by the citizenry (they hate this, they hate the little guy having a voice). We need to establish that socialilzed medicine (not government hospitals - HR676) is a good thing - by reclaiming language.
Leaving the word social as a perjorative just makes their job too easy. It is not a perjorative. We need to make that point.
Jo @ 18:
Jo,
Ya beat me to it.
Jugomugo @ 15:
Outlaw death for profit.
Grow your own tobacco if you want to smoke.
anon @ 22:
Pay for your own damn kids instead of forcing more taxes upon me. People need to be responsible instead of waiting for government hand outs.
please, the reason bush vetoed the bill was because his pals in big insurance told him to, and wrote for him the reasons....nothing more, nothing less
analyzing his bullshit reasons is mental masturbation
i hope that the twins both get incurable vaginal cancer
Jo @ 18:
Jo
I dare you to tell my one year old to give up her cognac and Macanudo after dinner. Be prepared for a tantrum!
anon @ 22:
Better get ready to outlaw fast food, polluting factories, automobile manufacturers, meat producers, etc...
Fanon @ 25:
Yes, because raising taxes on RESPONSIBLE ADULTS is going to stop underage drinking and smoking. Most children theses days have MORE than enough disposable income to spend on cigs and liquor.
Jugomugo @ 23:
You duck the issue - typical - change the subject.
I have better values than you. I love kids and am willing - as a member of a larger society - to help them. You love money more than kids, clearly. You are not a valued member of society.
I smoked for 33 years. And I insist that death for profit is insane. You want to smoke, take responsibility for yourself (your pitard is ready), grow your own tobacco.
You benefit in other ways from the generosity of others and when asked to contribute to others - you turn your back - over money.
Sad really.
anon @ 28:
I already pay enough money in taxes to the federal government. Want to help the children? Use the money we're wasting in Iraq. Instead, the Dems would rather impose MORE taxes upon the people instead of cleaning up the mess they have already created.
In a perfect world everyone would be able to afford all the basics in life, but ours is far from perfect so we need to help each other out sometimes. That's what this program provides. We all chip in with taxes to help kids get the medical care they need. I don't believe that's too much to ask. Our tax money now goes for things like wars and such, so giving a little more to help kids is fine by me.
Jugomugo @ 26:
... and not too smart to boot. Cars are not designed to kill. Cars kill when they are used incorrectly. Tobacco kills when used correctly. See the difference?
A product that causes harm - for profit - when used correctly is a product society doesnt need to endorse or support.
Be responsible, grow your own tobacco. I really dont care if you kill yourself with tobacco that you grew. Just dont sell it for a profit so others die. Your tobacco - your death.
Jugomugo @ 27:
Sounds like somebody needs a smoke break.
You don't think you pay for under insured people as it is? Why do you think it cost about $15 for an aspirin when you are in the hospital? It's called subsidising. Your insurance company and mine are already subsidising care for uninsured and underinsured patients. Want to know why so many Emergency Rooms are closing around the country? They can't afford to stay open because they see too many underinsured or uninsured people for sore throats and ear aches.
Well child care is cheaper and more beneficial to society in the long run.
Wake up and smell the cigar smoke.
Patty @ 3:
Absolutely!!!! Bu$h is a dispicable asshat. This is one more example that supports that statement.
Citizen D @ 7:
by a small child who needs health care...
Jugomugo @ 29:
Liar.
The democrats didnt cause this. The republicans and Bush did. Five times they have had to raise the debt ceiling. They keep the war off the books with supplimentals.
They lie cheat and steal. (and kill) ... and you blame the democrats.
Be a man for godsake and at least admit the truth.
anon @ 31:
Prove to me that smoking a cigar kills. Show me documented evidence. You won't, because you can't. You better start outlawing junk food too. That supposedly kills people as well.
Yellow elephant - how is the ol' Chipper these days? How did things work out with that court case?
jwrjr @ 10:
Exactly. His reasons and his rationale seldom coincide, regardless of the facts.
anon @ 35:
The democrats didnt cause this. The republicans and Bush did. Five times they have had to raise the debt ceiling. They keep the war off the books with supplimentals.
They lie cheat and steal. (and kill) ... and you blame the democrats.
Be a man for godsake and at least admit the truth.
Guess they need to try harder instead of raising taxes. There's plenty of money to go around. Think of all the children that could get coverage with half the money from this war. In the meantime, we need to REDUCE taxes not increase them. Put the money back in the American people's pocket and let them make responsible decisions with it.
A Bush Administration decision based on errors of fact and logic? I simply can't beleive it!
Jugomugo @ 36:
Hmm, how about oral cancer, cancer of the tongue or cancer of the soft palate. You'll look just fine with the lower half of your jaw missing. Maybe you'll get lucky and it won't kill you.
I love the headline of this post. What a versatile sentence. Bush's presidency is based on errors of fact and logic. McCain's campaign is based on errors of fact and logic. The world view of southern religious conservatives is based on errors of fact and logic. The possibilities are endless.
jr @ 6:
...and that $2 trillion would fix the US infrastructure, which is broken due to the decay and neglect of the past two decades, and still have $400 billion left over in change.
Since as we all know the msm won't point out that bush is wrong why aren't the dems calling for a presser to refute the bush bullshit? They call a presser and the media will cover it. Sending out some dumb written statement won't do it. You think that statement is on wingnuts sights? on tv?
Fanon @ 41:
Prove it.
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/women/warchive/960529_1104.html
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigar_Smoking.asp
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/4/333
Here's some links on cancer and cigar smoke to get you started.
Fanon @ 46:
Low percentages. Just like I said, you can't prove that smoking a cigar will kill you.
Jugomugo @ 39:
Guess they need to try harder instead of raising taxes. There's plenty of money to go around. Think of all the children that could get coverage with half the money from this war. In the meantime, we need to REDUCE taxes not increase them. Put the money back in the American people's pocket and let them make responsible decisions with it.
You dont have a clue.
Bad == democrats
good (and victim) == republicans
... do facts mean anything to you?
BTW, junk food ISNT food. (Ask a nutritionist) They are a product that is sold as food. No nutritionist would recommend using junk food as food. That is, to make this VERY easy for you, the professionals would define the correct use of junk food as seldom if ever. Beyond that it does cause harm. Harm that in the long run comes out of your pocket through the market (not government).
Jugomugo @ 15:
Why? Is smoking and getting drunk a necessity for you, while children who can't get health care needlessly die? Great values you have there.
SLIPPERY SNAILS AND SKUNK SPIT!!! CAN GW COMPREHEND? ME THINKS NOT.
anon @ 48:
You dont have a clue.
Bad == democrats
good (and victim) == republicans
... do facts mean anything to you?
BTW, junk food ISNT food. (Ask a nutritionist) They are a product that is sold as food. No nutritionist would recommend using junk food as food. That is, to make this VERY easy for you, the professionals would define the correct use of junk food as seldom if ever. Beyond that it does cause harm. Harm that in the long run comes out of your pocket through the market (not government).
Too bad our government supports junk food purchases through welfare programs. Your tax dollars are being spent on cheetoes and Coke.
maybe if those kids worked for a living they would be able to afford health care.
Jugomugo @ 36:
My uncle died from throat cancer and he only smoked cigars... not one cigarette... just cigars. Does that prove it or does he have to tell you himself?
Undermining healthcare for kids for demonstrably false reasons.
Kids say no more photo ops. LOL
http://ga3.org/campaign/SCHIPvideo
right on! @ 53:
YOU KNOW WHAT, PEOPLE? YOU DON'T GET OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE!! SOMETHING'S GOING TO GET YOU.
right on! @ 53:
That's a little hard when he's dead, is it not? What were his preexisting conditions? How much did he smoke? What kind of lifestyle did he live?
It's simple as this: The dems want to increase taxes on things that I enjoy to fund a program they should be funding through existing monies. They can get it from elsewhere, they're just too incompetent to do it.
Jugomugo @ 47:
You have no standing to ask that question. Actual scientists who have dedicated their entire lives and whose work is predicated on the dedicated lives of thousands of scientists that preceeded them have standing and they state conclusively that smoking cigars is a cancer hazard - your petulant demands are without merit.
He doesnt need to prove it. He doesnt need to subsidize tobacco either.
GROW YOUR OWN TOBACCO.
Why should we support your lazy cheap butt through our tax dollars.
Grow your own tobacco, smoke it and die alone without our help or finacial support.
Be responsible for yourself.
Jugomugo @ 57:
Or maybe it's as simple as this... STFU!
rain @ 56:
No doubt.
I am working today on a fundraiser for a neighbour who has breast cancer.
I am Canadian living in the US and in Canada I had never heard of anyone doing a fund raiser to help a family with an illness, cope with expenses.
First all the medical bills would be covered (actually you would not ever see a bill) second she would still be getting up to 60% of her salary through disability insurance.
Why are American's afraid of solcialising programs which would make for a safer healthier society. Crime in solcialzed countries is so much lower than the US. I think people feel safer.
When you move so far away, you miss the things you couldn't bring with you. Today I miss the solcialized infrastructur in Canada that would save my neighbour alot of fear and difficulty.
Jugomugo @ 47:
You can't prove it won't. And, you never said low percentages. You said, quite decisively, that it wouldn't kill you.
Anyways, it's beside the point, really. Like I said, if you think you are not already paying for the ininsured and under insured as it is, you are dead wrong.
So, a couple of cents gets tacked on to your cigar, BFD.
is our childrens working? If not, they should get jobs. Those lazy little bastards just want free everything! Free public education, free healthcare, free drugs! Where is it going to stop! Well, it's not where it stops, it's where it starts. It starts with full time employment. Kids should be working as soon as they can walk. If it's good enough for a kid in a sweatshop in Myanmar, it's good enough for Joe Littletoe in Arkansas.
I'm with Bush, until our childrens is working, I don't think they deserve anything more than starvation.
Jugomugo @ 51:
Too bad our government supports junk food purchases through welfare programs. Your tax dollars are being spent on cheetoes and Coke.
I call bullshit. Nice concern troll. Are all the welfare queens out there buying bling with their Link cards, too? Puhleeeeese!!
rain @ 56:
You miss the point. No death for profit. You want to smoke. Do it with your own tobacco. That is liberty. Dont expect me to subsidize your habit or your health issues caused by your habit. The truth is that I am humane enough to help you, while this guy isnt - not even for children.
This is just wrong. Please edit to read
The sequel will be the ass-holery of hard core gooper senators holding out for whatever pork they want in exchange for a yes vote. Go get 'em Orrin!
anon @ 65:
Then you shouldn't expect me to subsidize the production of offspring. How much does each child in this country cost the American taxpayer? Those children can go out and kill someone, so you're subsidizing death.
Jugomugo @ 57:
You really are a typical republican. Fiscally irresponsible. Here is a lesson in economics.
There is no free lunch. You pay for programs with taxes. It is responsible to levy taxes for programs. What Bush and the republicans are doing is theft. Not paying (borrowing from the future) for programs - small programs - like the war in Iraq (2 trillion) is stealing.
Raise money, then spend money on programs. That is responsible. Your beef is - you dont want to pay for anything. (But you will take all that comes your way - including tobacco subsidies, hypocrit).
I have a suggestion for congress. Stop the tobacco subsidies which keep the cost of cigars low and use that money for SCHP.
Jugomugo @ 23:
dont you miss pissing on yo mammas face?
Gayle @ 61:
Hi Gayle, you sound like a really nice friend and neighbor to have. :) I hope you don't mind a little snark at the expense of my fellow citizens. But we Mericans care about the health and safety of our bank accounts more than the health and safety of people. I know that's harsh. But there you go. Sorry! Feeling a little bitter about the veto!!
do-si-do @ 66:
I entirely missed that.
You are absolutely right.
Damn.
I don't know why Bush can't figure out that we need to keep the poor kids healthy so they can continue to fight his pet war in the ME that will still be raging on in twenty years.
Jugomugo @ 67:
You are equating an unneccessary activity like smoking cigars with the health of children.
Sorry, but you are nuts.
anon @ 68:
Considering the tobacco I smoke comes from outside the United States, can you please show me how the US government is subsidizing said tobacco?
I'm a libertarian btw. You have also seemed to miss the point where we should take money from existing programs to pay for healthcare and not imposing additional taxes upon the people.
[Deleted. No need to name call or assume behavior theories of other posters. After all, you're the one who's all about proof-Sitemonitor]
"The problem, of course, is that these rationales happen to be spectacularly wrong."
unfortunately rightards lap up every lie like they are starving
anon @ 73:
Having children is an unnecessary activity. There's more than enough children in the world already.
right on! @ 53:
No it proves nothing. Your uncle's situation and your description of it is referred to as 'anecdotal' in the scientific and medical community. Like people who say marijuana helps health problems.
Jugomugo @ 74:
Ignorance.
What you suggest is robbing peter to pay paul. Peter ends up without enough money and has to rob jugo.
There is no found money. Start a program - fund the program. Money that isnt used efficiently should be returned not used elsewhere.
I dont believe you smoke only foreign cigars that have no indirect government supports.
You cost me too much. Why were you born? I dont need you? Why you and not those kids you dont want to help? If you wont help them, why should anyone help you?
Your momma made a mistake. We didnt need you after all.
Jugomugo @ 76:
More than enough in particular just before you were born.
Children are unneccessary. Hmm, ok, then no nurse in the nursing home for you, or doctor or firefighter or police officer. Chances are that the people who will provide those services for you in the future are the same people who would benefit from the S-Chip program today.
You don't want to support them? Why the hell should the support you?
Have fun chanigng your own diapers.
Bush needs his Magic Eightball polished.
So the general consensus stated so far is that you would rather fund the war in the middle east than buy healthcare for children?
There's plenty of money in the war chest to help children.
miss_kitty @ 77:
The people that establish the connection between health issues and smoking cigars have standing. Jugo has no standing to petulantly demand 'proof' against the assertions of those with standing.
His uncle most probably developed throat cancer from smoking cigars. That is, from a scientific/medical perspective, the probably cause of his cancer was cigar smoking. (Not some other cause).
This isnt a scientific debate. You should demand rigor in a scientific debate. Scientists with standing have made the connection between cigars and cancer. At this point, science cant conclusively connect any specific cancer to any cause. Cancer isnt well enough understood. The failure is at this point with science, not this guy whose uncle died. It is more likely that his cancer was from cigars than something else. That is what science says. In time, science will say your specific cancer is due to a specific cause. That isnt possible at this time. Expecting this guy to meet that standard when science cant at this point in time is wrong.
Jugomugo @ 82:
Gee, yeah, that's exaclty what was said. WTF are you talking about. Nobody that I can see said that. The options weren't tax cigars or use the war chest to help children and we chose cigars. Be normal, at least.
In that case, your consensus is that you would rather smoke cigars than help children. Oh, wait, that's EXACTLY what you said.
Jugomugo @ 57:
do-si-do @ 72:
In response to this, I think the answer is simple.. Instead of spending money on educating or providing health care for our kids, we can just ship them off to enemy countries with a rifle and good supply of ammunition.
Then we don't need to worry about keeping them alive along enough to enlist - just sign them up right away!
Jugomugo @ 82:
Again, you are nuts.
Bush wouldnt divert funds for killing to help kids. He would veto that as well.
To you its about money. To Bush its about increasing the rich poor gulf. He sees the world as haves and havenots. He is benefitted if there are more havenots and he is a have.
Besides, you arent paying attention. The money for Iraq is off the books. Iraq is supplemental. It is unfunded.
I dont want to pay my bills, I am going to take money from you to give to the power company. You must have money your arent using.
as opposed to everything else Bush has done this veto was based on errors of fact and logic.
I thought that was the motto of his administration "We Base our Judgement on Errors of Fact and Logic" it's right on Bush's desk where the old Buck Stopper sign once sat.
anon @ 83:
So is making the statement that smoking a cigar will kill you. Yes, there's evidence that it could lead to cancer, but it's not certain. Therefore, smoking cigars death.
^^^ does not equal.
Sorry for all the ad hominems. But this just amazes me. I have never seen just blatant greed and selfish self interest at the expense of others - and in this case that means children. Just unbelievable.
To you its about money. To Bush its about increasing the rich poor gulf. He sees the world as haves and havenots. He is benefitted if there are more havenots and he is a have.
It is more of a half the a have. in human standards that is.
Jugomugo @ 89:
I studied physics and math in college under nobel prize winners (Lamb). I understand standing ... you dont have standing, or if you do tell me how you do. You arent part of the scientific dialog. The best you can do is use the work of those with standing.
At this point you could make (people have) the connection in court between a cancer and a cause whether or not your requirement for proof were met.
Why? Because the courts recognize who has standing. In this case, scientists - who have established the connection between throat cancer and cigars even if they cant definitively prove a specific cancer positively was caused by a specific cigar.
Jugomugo @ 27:
By "most children", of course you mean "most children in my well-to-do suburb".
anon @ 93:
lol. So you, nor scientists can prove that I will die from smoking a cigar. Thanks for clearing things up.
reyvn @ 94:
My well-to-do 95% white suburb, that is
anon @ 93:
My sole point was that right on!'s story in and of itself is not proof. It's anecdotal-that is without other evidence, supplied by science, it's only a story.
Not that I doubt it. I know other proofs exist. My condolences for your family's loss, right on!. It's a terrible disease.
Fanon @ 96:
Except my neighborhood is primarily Hispanic and African American. meh.
The housing and taxes are cheaper there.
Jugomugo @ 95:
You should stay out of science ... you just dont have what it takes.
Not what I said.
You WILL die from smoking cigars. It cant be identified specifically how .. but you will .. cancer ... heart disease ... pulminary disease and more. It is known to a certainty that
you are shortening your life by smoking cigars. Your specific means of death are at this point unknown. But you are shortening your life. No question.
Turnabout is fair play.
hahaha
You have no standing.
Jugomugo @ 82:
Actually the general consensus I've been getting from reading this fun little distraction is that you'd rather have cheap cigars and booze than buy healthcare for children.
Nobody here has advocated funding the war. And as pointed out above, the money for the occupation of Iraq is Not In The Budget. This was moneys above and beyond what we are being taxed currently. Moneys we will have to institute taxes to pay for in the future...at the expense of more programs like S-CHIP.
But you just kick back with your phat cigars and bottle of 'courage' and don't worry your little self about real stuff. After all, the FatCats share your vices so they will be protected...regardless of how many children suffer.
miss_kitty @ 97:
I understand. I was remarking that he cant know - science doesnt know. He was specifically wrong, but shouldnt be held to that standard. The courts would have concluded the same thing he did.
childrens need velcro bootsraps
Jugomugo @ 76:
gosh why didn't I think of that. Let's start making babies only if there's a baby shortage!
Libertarianism is for rich people who think they actually made that money all by themselves without any help from anybody else or the government. It's bone-headed and irrelevant.
Regarding Bush ~
"He's an idiot. Comes from up-bringing. Parents are probably idiots too."
*
People...he can't read, you know that.
Trittydi @ 104:
..... not that this particular issue proves that Bush is an idiot
Arroyo @ 106:
No kidding. I think most of us agreed on that before the first time he was supposedly elected.
Rally tonight. You can find locations at Moveon.org.
If people vote their pockets ooks, The the half-witted drooler who occupies the Oval Office has just lost the 2008 election for the GOP by such wide margin that even with all their dirty tricks, vote rigging, voter suppresion, vote stelaing won't do them any good.
The Tories and the Whigs became non-viable. I'm thinking it's now the GOP's turn.
It is an axiom that people vote their pocket books? If that is so, the half-witted drooler who currently occupies the WH has just lost the 2008 elections for the GOP. Across the board. All the GOPer dirty tricks, election rigging, vote stealing and voter suppresion won't be enough to overcome the margin by which they are going to lose. I never imagined I'd ever say such a thing, but...thanks, Chimpy (you stupid fuck)!
May the GOPer's go the way of the Tories and the Whigs.
Libertarian is what folks who think Republicans are in favor of too much government call themselves. Human beings have never survived without community and mutual aid. Making lots of money doesn't absolve one of obligation to his or her community, it increases it. Otherwise we are ruled by greed and self-interest - and we can see how well that's worked for the past 6 1/2 years.
There is a little man in Gresham Oregon named Don McIntyre who is a pure libertarian. He had one success years ago and devastated the public schools. The state has been playing catch up ever since. Most of his other initiatives have gone down or been ruled unconstitutional. Don, like anon, wants to spend his money on scotch and cigars, and thinks he shouldn't have to pay a penny for children.
Love to see all the bossy people looking for a reason to push other people around. Today's excuse - smokers. Forget that taxes on tobacco are about the most regressive taxes possible. Just remember that smokers have been declared "bad people" by the establishment. So weak, bossy, power-craved, little busy-bodies get to jump on their high-horse and lecture.
The SCHIP program is a good program, but there is no excuse to throw all of its burden on smokers. Why can't rich people pay taxes for a change?
anon @ 22:
hate to tell you this, but adding extreme taxes to vice items will only lead to growth in the black market sector...as has occured in california
one should never use taxes to regulate behavior
One point I think is missed in this conversation: spending money on children's healthcare saves money in the long run. Preventative care (vaccines, nutritional counseling, metabolic screening) is the cheapest healthcare you can buy. If even 0.1% of these kids become disabled because of uncontrolled diabetes (for example) and end up collecting social security, you're out a lot more money.
Of course, a whole year of this damned program could be payed for by the same money that's being blown every five days in Iraq.
miss_kitty @ 77:
Sorry to bring this too far off topic, but how are we supposed to get scientific evidence of the health effects (negative or positive) of marijuana if the NIH won't fund the damned research? Marijuana has been shown to decrease intra-occular presure in persons with glaucoma - although not as effectively as other drugs.
fucking bush is just needing more money to fund his illegal war in iraq and to
start an illegal war with iran.
he is a fucking hypocrite and bastard who only wants funds available for his
corporate buddies.
Now, if the right wing was trying to pass this bill, and it was vetoed by a Democrat president, how would they approach it? What would Limbaugh, Fox News, et. all say?
Probably something like this - the veto means that the terrorists have won. Due to the budget deficits created in part by the borrowing to finance the war in Iraq, there is no funding for America's most vulnerable citizens. Bin Laden has long argued for attacking America's economy, bogging the U.S. down in Iraq with the endless depletion of money is a victory for the terrorists, etc, etc. Your proof is no health care for poor children.
You know, hate to have to say it, but sometimes the people of this country remind me of a passage from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles: "that these are just simple farmers; these are people of the land, the common clay of the new West. You know, morons." It's quite clear that the right wing feels that they can fit any rationale on a set of circumstances and sell it to America.
Just because I like to smoke cigs you want me to pay for the medical care of 10 million under privlaged children is wrong. The funds need to come from a more large poplace area such as a national sales tax. This should be the approach for medical coverage for the whole country. That way everybody partakes in the cost not just a few. to single out one group of people to pay for someones medical bills is in my opion unconstitutional. for that reason only I am for the veto. I have to breath all your car exhaust fumes, I have to drink water with all your chemicals and shit in it, I have to eat food laced with all kinds of chemicals, toxin and growth hormones that cause little girls to grow boobs the size of 30 year old women. I live in Texas and for the last year I have been paying for the education of every body kids in Texas just because I like to smoke cigs. I am not responsibe for every bodys bills that they don't like to pay. All I am saying is create the tax code that lets every one participate in the cost.
Comments are closed on this entry