Just when you thought it couldn't get worse....
To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."MORE
So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.
Bush's veto Wednesday of a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was infuriatingly bad policy. An estimated 9 million children in this country are not covered by health insurance -- a circumstance that should shock the consciences of every American. Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft an expansion of an existing state-run program that would have provided coverage for about 4 million children who currently don't have it.
Any righties who want to discuss health care issues care to defend Bush's stance and blatant lies on this issue?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/05/2007
17 comments
17 Comments:
Preach it, brother. Preach it.
Certainly. Show me in the US Constitution where it says anything about the federal government providing health insurance, or any other kind of entitlement program for that matter.
"Nancy"...
You DO know that isn't my writing, right?
I think you may be confused. (unsurprisingly)
Ahhhh I see. The government can't do ANYTHING unless it was specifically anticipated and spelled out by the founding fathers over two centuries ago.
Good logic. That will keep our country strong and abrest of current societal needs.
I don't see anything in the constitution about building the federal highway system, or the Hoover Dam, or veterans benefits, or the FDA or striving to ensure that water is fit to drink and air is fit to breath without causing disease.
I guess all that stuff goes too?
Nic is right.
What has happened to personal responsibility? For providing for your family?
I would venture a guess that a majority of the people that do not have health insurance DO HAVE -
- Cell phones
- Cable TV
A lot of them smoke.
Most drink.
The point - people MAKE CHOICES on how they spend their money.
Are there problems with the COST of healthcare - certainly. However, allowing people to make the wrong choices is not the answer.
Where do the 'liberal' rights end?
Medical?
Steak, rather than the staples?
A car, rather than a bus?
A Corolla, rather than a '78 Chevy?
An income - welfare?
With this thinking on 'rights' - pretty soon some crazy politician is going to tell us that it would be wise policy to give every baby born $5,000!
I've always kinda wondered, if the Ebola strain hit Crawford or Grand Island, whether the righties there would continue to view the Centers for Disease Control as illegitimate and a constitutional abomination.
"Show it to me in the Constitution" has been an especially interesting argument since Bush v. Gore. Never did find the part of the constitution that explained how States were supposed to figure out their own way of identifying Electors, except when SCOTUS doesn't like the State's way.
Strict Constructionism is situational ethics, which pretty much always blow.
Anon 9:33
Yeah, we couldn't dare give every baby $5000. That would be just crazy!
It's much better the way it is now where we give every defense contractor $50,000,000 to overcharge and then sell weapons to nations around the world, that often end up being used against our troops.
Helping babies? God forbid!!!!
Helping mega-corporations and billinoaires... hell yes, no questions asked.
UMR,
Agreed, as is the phony concept of "activist judges", which of course, are simply judges that interpret the laws and constitution in ways conservatives don't like.
Bush v. Gore is just one shameful example of "activist judges". The Surpreme Court had a strict doctrine of never wading into what could be considered a political fight. Until 2000.
The right are particularly able to somehow hold these lop-sided and plainly hypocritical and injust arguments in their heads without realizing just how hypocritical they are.
As pundits have begun to point out, apparently these power mongers with their radical and bizarre quasi-legal means that the administration has used in their massive effort to amass power and turn the executive branch into a dictatorship never stopped to realize that all this power they've lusted after and skirted the law to grab would apply to President Hillary as well.
Just watch then how they turn on a dime and scream that these radical notions that Bush has used to usurp power aren't legal or constitutional.
Another example of situational ethics, and of course, rank hypocrisy.
So, you think that Hillary's $5,000 to every baby born is a good idea, is that what I am reading?
anony 6:18
It's become apparent for some time that you're going to read into whatever I write bizarre stuff that is only in your head anyway.
If I wrote that I thought that was a good idea, then that's probably what I meant. If I didn't write that (which I didn't, but apparently you're too dense to notice) then it probably means that I don't.
Anyway, I'll just let you guess how I feel about it.
I suppose I should now assume that you think letting corporations and large companies rake in multiple millions in unearned and/or fraudulent income from the "war" is a "good idea"?
anony 6:18
It's become apparent for some time that you're going to read into whatever I write bizarre stuff that is only in your head anyway.
If I wrote that I thought that was a good idea, then that's probably what I meant. If I didn't write that (which I didn't, but apparently you're too dense to notice) then it probably means that I don't.
Anyway, I'll just let you guess how I feel about it.
I suppose I should now assume that you think letting corporations and large companies rake in multiple millions in unearned and/or fraudulent income from the "war" is a "good idea"?
That's a rhetorical question, I hope you don't try to answer, because frankly, I'm not sure if you're capable of argument without trying to read things that aren't there.
One thing is for certain --- wild-eyed liberal are not cheap ($5,000 per child) unless it is their money! As long as it's taxpayers money who cares? Right Dope?
Anon 12:44.
No, wrong. Dead wrong.
And again, you neatly avoid the fact that the proportion of YOUR money, as you prefer to think of it, is put directly into the coffers of millionaires and billionaires through fraud and no-bid contracts completely dwarfs all money actually spent in the effort to help your fellow citizens of average means.
Why do you not utter a peep when your money is stolen by those who are already well off, but have a coniption fit when it's spent out in the open in efforts to better your neighbor's (and your) life?
Daily Show" viewers are more up on current events than Fox News viewers are.
But overall, everyone is less informed that voters of 40 years ago.
Article here.
Dope,
I know that the liberal answer to everything is -
LET THE GOVERNMENT HANDLE IT - AND PAY FOR EVERYONE...
But, please, we all agree that the healthcare system is a mess (at least the cost of it).
You MUST have some thoughts concerning healthcare beyond having the United States TAXPAYER cover the bill, no?
How would you, being the brilliant thinker that you are, deal with the cost of healthcare (without affecting the service in a negative manner)?
I suggest you take the time to review some of the in-depth health policy statements of the candidates.
I'm not here to do that for you.
And if you're hoping to goad me into explaining complex funding mechanisms for national health care in blog comments, for God's sake, you're sadly mistaken.
You're not too dense, (I hope) to realize that there are most definitely ways to provide national health care and it's been done and is being done successfully in nearly every other advanced nation on earth, despite the often outright false propaganda to the contrary.
It's refreshing to see John Deere and Alcoa finally get a piece of the military contracts. People act as though all we can do here is make tractors and pop cans, but anyone familiar with our area knows that we are experts in building weapons, armor and killing machines.
I suspect our new neighbors to the North (Blackwater)had something to do with our area getting all these new contracts. As the war continues I bet we get more sand more military contracts. It's good to know that our workers are leading the way to free Iraqies and fight against Terrorism!
Three cheers for the executive and workers at Deere and Alcoa. Our area can't afford to leave all this work to Haliburton!
Post a Comment
<< Home