Bush GLAD Obama Health Care Passed!!!!!!!

[DaGoose]

One of the daughters of former President George W. Bush isn't following the Republican Party line when it comes to the issue of the health care legislation that cleared Congress last spring without any GOP support.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Barbara Bush said she's "glad" Democrats passed the massive spending measure and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" the 28-year old said. "Health should be a right for everyone."

Asked specifically what she though about the president's health care initiative, Bush replied with a smile, "That is a good question - obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people and I guess I'm glad the bill was passed."


The Democratic health care effort was deeply opposed by Republican members of Congress who derided its more-than $800 billion price tag and said it will do little to contain health rising care costs down the road.

Bush runs the Global Health Corps, a nonprofit group that aims to connect "outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the front lines in order to promote global health equity," according to the organization's website.

In the same interview, Bush said she doesn't see herself ever running for political office.

 

[liebuster]

Just more evidence that the Bush family is a bunch of progressives. Of course if you listen to MSNBC you would be led to believe that they are a bunch of anti government extremists

When will the Left wake up and realize that the "center" keeps moving left and has been for the last 100 years?

 

[Dr Grump]

When will the right realise their way of thinking is archaic?

 

[Missourian]

Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. -Terry Pratchett

 

[Missourian]

George Bush's daughter?

Martin Luther King's niece headlines Glenn Beck rally.

 

[liebuster]

When will the right realise their way of thinking is archaic?

Actually the Left's way of thinking has been the dominate one for ohhhhh, I don't know....Maybe most of the human history!

The human race has endured most of its existence with oppressive and tyranical governments. Only in the last couple hundred years have humans enjoyed the individualism that accompanies true liberty.

You seem to think that somehow giving more power to government this time will somehow yield a different result.

 

[shintao]

Just more evidence that the Bush family is a bunch of progressives. Of course if you listen to MSNBC you would be led to believe that they are a bunch of anti government extremistsWhen will the Left wake up and realize that the "center" keeps moving left and has been for the last 100 years?

Funding Hitler = Grand pappy Bush
Funding Iran = Bush Sr.
Funding Afghanistan = Bush Jr.

Nah, nothing extreme there between those murderous cut throats.

 

[liebuster]

Just more evidence that the Bush family is a bunch of progressives. Of course if you listen to MSNBC you would be led to believe that they are a bunch of anti government extremistsWhen will the Left wake up and realize that the "center" keeps moving left and has been for the last 100 years?

Funding Hitler = Grand pappy Bush
Funding Iran = Bush Sr.
Funding Afghanistan = Bush Jr.

Nah, nothing extreme there between those murderous cut throats.

'

So.... They're "Anti government extremists" because they fund other governments?

Not defending their actions, but just trying to figure out your logic.


By the way, what you just described is actually a form of nation building which just so happens to be the opposite of what true conservatives believe. We shouldn't be influencing any nation with money and bribes not to mention those shit hole nations.

 

[shintao]

Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. -Terry Pratchett

 

[AVG-JOE]

When will the right realise their way of thinking is archaic?

Actually the Left's way of thinking has been the dominate one for ohhhhh, I don't know....Maybe most of the human history!

The human race has endured most of its existence with oppressive and tyranical governments. Only in the last couple hundred years have humans enjoyed the individualism that accompanies true liberty.

You seem to think that somehow giving more power to government this time will somehow yield a different result.

It's not a question of 'more' or 'less' government, it's about 'correct' government.

Government has a role in society - if we don't for the most part agree to that vague concept we may as well bag this discussion, crack another brew and wait for the anarchy to begin.

Who should have ownership responsibilities and ownership rewards for the bureaucracies that keep our economy humming along?

Doesn't seem like such a difficult question...​

Actually, it's kind of a bitch. The obvious one is security. Any Job that requires a gun to preform should be managed by We, The People, agreed?

What about roads? Should we see what happens if we let roads and bridges just happen according to the whims of those who can afford to build them?

What should 'Government' keep itself busy with on any given day?

 

[liebuster]

It's not a question of 'more' or 'less' government, it's about 'correct' government.

I'm not talking about more or less government but about how much power a gov has. Historically governments have been the oppressors of humanity. When will gov have enough power? When will they have enough taxes? When will gov say, " OK, we have enough power and we shouldn't confiscate anymore power" ?

Government has a role in society - if we don't for the most part agree to that vague concept we may as well bag this discussion, crack another brew and wait for the anarchy to begin.

Absolutely agree. I am not "anti gov" and am a strong supporter of local governments. One of the examples used by the left to demonstrate that "government does work" is to cite the police department, fire department, the roads, all of which are managed by local and state governments. I have no problem with that type of "socialism"

Who should have ownership responsibilities and ownership rewards for the bureaucracies that keep our economy humming along?

Local bureaucracies. I know thats vague but I believe the control of peoples lives should be held a close as possible to the people that it affects. Its not fun when congress critters from the other side of the country get bribed and payed off to vote for something that maybe you and your community might not want. What type of recourse do you have against that person? You can't vote them out and if you call their office they ignore your opinion because your not a constituent.

What about roads? Should we see what happens if we let roads and bridges just happen according to the whims of those who can afford to build them?

Roads are managed and maintained by cities, counties and states. Again I have no problem with "local" gov.

What should 'Government' keep itself busy with on any given day?

It depends on which gov your talking about. Are you talking about the fed? Or are you talking about the localities?

The federal Gov needs to keep itself busy handling interstate affairs. Basically keeping states from getting into arguments. Hence the "interstate commerce" clause.

The localities need to concern themselves with safe streets, crime, building codes, schools, infrastructure, emergency services, ect, ect....

I partly fault myself for not distinguishing between federal and local govs. Generally when I refer to government I'm referring to the federal government. If I have a problem with a local gov I will move myself and family to a jurisdiction that I prefer.

I have a real problem moving from hundreds of self absorbed nanny statists do good federal politicians that think its their destiny to make sure 350 million people have the same principles as thier few hundred thousand constituents

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not a question of 'more' or 'less' government, it's about 'correct' government.

I'm not talking about more or less government but about how much power a gov has. Historically governments have been the oppressors of humanity. When will gov have enough power? When will they have enough taxes? When will gov say, " OK, we have enough power and we shouldn't confiscate anymore power" ?

Government has a role in society - if we don't for the most part agree to that vague concept we may as well bag this discussion, crack another brew and wait for the anarchy to begin.

Absolutely agree. I am not "anti gov" and am a strong supporter of local governments. One of the examples used by the left to demonstrate that "government does work" is to cite the police department, fire department, the roads, all of which are managed by local and state governments. I have no problem with that type of "socialism"

Local bureaucracies. I know thats vague but I believe the control of peoples lives should be held a close as possible to the people that it affects. Its not fun when congress critters from the other side of the country get bribed and payed off to vote for something that maybe you and your community might not want. What type of recourse do you have against that person? You can't vote them out and if you call their office they ignore your opinion because your not a constituent.

What about roads? Should we see what happens if we let roads and bridges just happen according to the whims of those who can afford to build them?

Roads are managed and maintained by cities, counties and states. Again I have no problem with "local" gov.

What should 'Government' keep itself busy with on any given day?

It depends on which gov your talking about. Are you talking about the fed? Or are you talking about the localities?

The federal Gov needs to keep itself busy handling interstate affairs. Basically keeping states from getting into arguments. Hence the "interstate commerce" clause.

The localities need to concern themselves with safe streets, crime, building codes, schools, infrastructure, emergency services, ect, ect....

I partly fault myself for not distinguishing between federal and local govs. Generally when I refer to government I'm referring to the federal government. If I have a problem with a local gov I will move myself and family to a jurisdiction that I prefer.

I have a real problem moving from hundreds of self absorbed nanny statists do good federal politicians that think its their destiny to make sure 350 million people have the same principles as thier few hundred thousand constituents

We have strong agreement on keeping government close, my personal opinion runs along the lines of counties taxing their citizens, states collecting 10% of what the counties collect and the federal level collecting 10% off the top of state coffers. For voters to know the daily bowel schedule of the president but not know the names of their county commissioners seems top-heavy to this average Joe, but right now MOST of us seem to think that the money we pay in taxes goes into Obama's personal checking account.

What should We, The People task our federal government with?

How about keeping an eye on the safety of the food supply? Should food producers be forced to adhere to 50 sets of guidelines for quality or one? Same question for safety in durable goods and consumer products?

How about care of the National Parks? Can We, The People trust the people of Florida not to pave The Everglades? Should they have the right to, ass-u-me-ing 75% of Floridians can be convinced that it's a good idea?

Can We, The People trust the people of Mississippi to educate their children? Before you answer, remember that it was not so long ago that We could NOT trust the government of MS to equally educate the children of its darker skinned citizens.

What about abortion? Will the people of Nebraska sit idly while the people of Oregon elect to commit what Nebraska perceives as a terrible sin? Should the rest of us make Nebraska mind its own bees-wax?

Should the people of California be allowed the recreational use of pot if ever they so choose to embrace that particular freedom?

My humble opinion? If 75% of Americans can't agree on a restricting or not a particular freedom, the states should be given the responsibility of granting or restricting it. If 75% of a states residents can't agree, the decision should go to the people of each county and if 75% of the people in any given county can't agree whether or not their neighbors should have a particular freedom, perhaps it's a choice best left up to each individual to make for themselves.

 

[Avorysuds]

Just more evidence that the Bush family is a bunch of progressives. Of course if you listen to MSNBC you would be led to believe that they are a bunch of anti government extremistsWhen will the Left wake up and realize that the "center" keeps moving left and has been for the last 100 years?

Funding Hitler = Grand pappy Bush
Funding Iran = Bush Sr.
Funding Afghanistan = Bush Jr.

Nah, nothing extreme there between those murderous cut throats.

Thanks for proving the Bush family is anything but Conservative?

 

[eagleseven]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just more evidence that the Bush family is a bunch of progressives.

....Especially if you spell Progressive....O-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-$-t.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When will the right realise their way of thinking is archaic?

Actually the Left's way of thinking has been the dominate one for ohhhhh, I don't know....Maybe most of the human history!

The human race has endured most of its existence with oppressive and tyranical governments. Only in the last couple hundred years have humans enjoyed the individualism that accompanies true liberty.

.....But, there's nothing more-enjoyable than exposing "conservative"-paranoia!!!!!



COINTELPRO

 

[AquaAthena]

One of the daughters of former President George W. Bush isn't following the Republican Party line when it comes to the issue of the health care legislation that cleared Congress last spring without any GOP support.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Barbara Bush said she's "glad" Democrats passed the massive spending measure and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" the 28-year old said. "Health should be a right for everyone."

Asked specifically what she though about the president's health care initiative, Bush replied with a smile, "That is a good question - obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people and I guess I'm glad the bill was passed."


The Democratic health care effort was deeply opposed by Republican members of Congress who derided its more-than $800 billion price tag and said it will do little to contain health rising care costs down the road.

Bush runs the Global Health Corps, a nonprofit group that aims to connect "outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the front lines in order to promote global health equity," according to the organization's website.

In the same interview, Bush said she doesn't see herself ever running for political office.

This doesn't surprise me. Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of President George W. Bush, is young and a minority. ( daughter of a president ) and I'll bet she knows little of economics and how the entitlement programs of many generations, and combined with unions, have brought our economy to a standstill.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

One of the daughters of former President George W. Bush isn't following the Republican Party line when it comes to the issue of the health care legislation that cleared Congress last spring without any GOP support.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Barbara Bush said she's "glad" Democrats passed the massive spending measure and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" the 28-year old said. "Health should be a right for everyone."

Asked specifically what she though about the president's health care initiative, Bush replied with a smile, "That is a good question - obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people and I guess I'm glad the bill was passed."


The Democratic health care effort was deeply opposed by Republican members of Congress who derided its more-than $800 billion price tag and said it will do little to contain health rising care costs down the road.

Bush runs the Global Health Corps, a nonprofit group that aims to connect "outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the front lines in order to promote global health equity," according to the organization's website.

In the same interview, Bush said she doesn't see herself ever running for political office.

This doesn't surprise me. Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of President George W. Bush, is young and a minority. ( daughter of a president ) and I'll bet she knows little of economics.....

Yeah.....'cause she's so far-separated from all issues, economic.

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the daughters of former President George W. Bush isn't following the Republican Party line when it comes to the issue of the health care legislation that cleared Congress last spring without any GOP support.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Barbara Bush said she's "glad" Democrats passed the massive spending measure and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" the 28-year old said. "Health should be a right for everyone."

Asked specifically what she though about the president's health care initiative, Bush replied with a smile, "That is a good question - obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people and I guess I'm glad the bill was passed."


The Democratic health care effort was deeply opposed by Republican members of Congress who derided its more-than $800 billion price tag and said it will do little to contain health rising care costs down the road.

Bush runs the Global Health Corps, a nonprofit group that aims to connect "outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the front lines in order to promote global health equity," according to the organization's website.

In the same interview, Bush said she doesn't see herself ever running for political office.

I didn't know membership in the Republican, or Democratic, party was hereditary.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One of the daughters of former President George W. Bush isn't following the Republican Party line when it comes to the issue of the health care legislation that cleared Congress last spring without any GOP support.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Barbara Bush said she's "glad" Democrats passed the massive spending measure and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" the 28-year old said. "Health should be a right for everyone."

Asked specifically what she though about the president's health care initiative, Bush replied with a smile, "That is a good question - obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people and I guess I'm glad the bill was passed."


The Democratic health care effort was deeply opposed by Republican members of Congress who derided its more-than $800 billion price tag and said it will do little to contain health rising care costs down the road.

Bush runs the Global Health Corps, a nonprofit group that aims to connect "outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the front lines in order to promote global health equity," according to the organization's website.

In the same interview, Bush said she doesn't see herself ever running for political office.

I didn't know membership in the Republican, or Democratic, party was hereditary.

Considering the stodgy politics of my RepubliCatholic family, I believe that I am living proof that it most certainly is not.