The President would be right

[RetiredGySgt]

The President has called our "compassionate" Liberal Democrats in Congress Irresponsible, why you ask? Because they keep trying to pass a bill they don't have the votes for, that they know they do not have the votes for, while the President has ask them to pass an extension of the current bill till they either get the votes to override him or they realize they won't get the votes.

The "children" will suffer, not because of the President, but because the Democrats want to play politics with their health coverage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

[DiogenesDog]

With all due respect, (I paraphrase)

that he might not be the greatest on figgerin' (Yale MBA term) out economic questions. He went on to add that he is not an economics president, but, he is a president that is keeping your taxes low and reining in unnecessary spending.

I about shot a big bite of chili-dog I was eating out my nose.

My disappointment with this half stepping Dem. Congress is profound. I have to attribute a good deal of it to the "wide stance", "toe-tapping" pics that are being held in reserve to hold them in check. Fortunately this president has yet to castle, so he is still open to a k./b. gambit.

Did any body but me see a Hiefer and Rocko relationship between Karl and W?

I AM

 

[Larkinn]

The President has called our "compassionate" Liberal Democrats in Congress Irresponsible, why you ask? Because they keep trying to pass a bill they don't have the votes for, that they know they do not have the votes for, while the President has ask them to pass an extension of the current bill till they either get the votes to override him or they realize they won't get the votes.

The "children" will suffer, not because of the President, but because the Democrats want to play politics with their health coverage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

So somehow its the Democrats fault that Bush refuses to expand coverage of the program? I see...its all so clear from your unbiased perspective RGS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So somehow its the Democrats fault that Bush refuses to expand coverage of the program? I see...its all so clear from your unbiased perspective RGS.

They are claiming it is his fault that the current program will end. He has repeatedly stated he WILL sign an extension. They, being Congress , have to create said bill and send it to him. They refuse to do so. Rather they prefer to play politics with children's health care and then trying to blame it on the President.

Using that standard the President could never veto any bill or complain about anything at all. I will remember this when a Democrat is President and Vetos any bill at all. Or when Congress refuses to pass any bill that is similar.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The President has called our "compassionate" Liberal Democrats in Congress Irresponsible, why you ask? Because they keep trying to pass a bill they don't have the votes for, that they know they do not have the votes for, while the President has ask them to pass an extension of the current bill till they either get the votes to override him or they realize they won't get the votes.

The "children" will suffer, not because of the President, but because the Democrats want to play politics with their health coverage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

So you and Bush have no problem finding all the money you want to fight your war in Iraq, but you can't bring yourself to spend 30 billion over 5 years for american children's health insurance.

 

[Larkinn]

They are claiming it is his fault that the current program will end. He has repeatedly stated he WILL sign an extension. They, being Congress , have to create said bill and send it to him. They refuse to do so. Rather they prefer to play politics with children's health care and then trying to blame it on the President.

They are both playing politics. Congressional Democrats want to cover more children under the bill than Bush does...they are both trying to get their way.

Using that standard the President could never veto any bill or complain about anything at all. I will remember this when a Democrat is President and Vetos any bill at all. Or when Congress refuses to pass any bill that is similar.

Umm what? You seem to be confused...under what standard exactly do you think "the President could never veto any bill" ?

 

[jillian]

Bush wants to cut out coverage for children whose families make too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to pay for private healthcare, leaving children who CURRENTLY have health care without any coverage.

He has stated he will not sign any bill that covers these people.

Why should the democrats send him a bill that is inadequate?

I guess the cause and effect confused the guy with the MBA from Yale.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bush wants to cut out coverage for children whose families make too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to pay for private healthcare, leaving children who CURRENTLY have health care without any coverage.

He has stated he will not sign any bill that covers these people.

Why should the democrats send him a bill that is inadequate?

I guess the cause and effect confused the guy with the MBA from Yale.

I suggest you learn to read, President Bush is opposed to expanding the program to people THAT CAN afford insurance. But then facts and reality never do matter to liberals.

Meanwhile the Democrats are claiming it is the President's fault the democrats won't extend the current bill that DOES cover children who's parents can't afford insurance.

 

[Larkinn]

I suggest you learn to read, President Bush is opposed to expanding the program to people THAT CAN afford insurance. But then facts and reality never do matter to liberals.

Umm, thats not a "fact"...actually thats something under dispute as to whether those families actually can afford insurance for their kids. Bush says yes, Congress says no.

 

[jillian]

I suggest you learn to read, President Bush is opposed to expanding the program to people THAT CAN afford insurance. But then facts and reality never do matter to liberals.

Meanwhile the Democrats are claiming it is the President's fault the democrats won't extend the current bill that DOES cover children who's parents can't afford insurance.

HE says that the people he's cutting CAN afford it. I'd suggest YOU do a bit of reseach to see what it costs to raise a family.

Are you incpable of having a conversation that doesn't use the word "libeals" and decides for the entire half of the population who disagrees with you what WE think?

Thought not.

Cheers. I truly lack the patience for that kind of stuff today.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

HE says that the people he's cutting CAN afford it. I'd suggest YOU do a bit of reseach to see what it costs to raise a family.

Are you incpable of having a conversation that doesn't use the word "libeals" and decides for the entire half of the population who disagrees with you what WE think?

Thought not.

Cheers. I truly lack the patience for that kind of stuff today.

Are you capable of having ANY conversation that involves republicans and President Bush and deciding what WE think? Yoo lack patience because on this issue you are wrong.

We currently have a law, a program that provides money to needy families with children for their Health Care. Democrats CLAIM more people should be covered. In the process they will ALLOW the current law to end DENYING coverage to ALL and are claiming that it is the President's fault. They would be wrong. He has been very clear on what would happen. The democrats made a decision to cause harm to millions of children to try and score political points. So much for "Compassion" and "caring".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a family. 2 children a wife and a mother in law. The Children are NOT covered by the military anymore and the Mother in law NEVER was. Our dental has never been covered.

So much for that strawman.

 

[doniston]

So you and Bush have no problem finding all the money you want to fight your war in Iraq, but you can't bring yourself to spend 30 billion over 5 years for american children's health insurance.

It doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it????

 

[jillian]

I have a family. 2 children a wife and a mother in law. The Children are NOT covered by the military anymore and the Mother in law NEVER was. Our dental has never been covered.

So much for that strawman.

I have medical, dental and optical coverage. Do you think it's a good thing that you have no coverage? Or do you think that by your military service you, perhaps, earned the right to have the same coverage as the members of Congress and the president legislated for themselves?

Bush has all the money in the world to wage war, why not to cover our children's medical needs? Are you aware that about 50% of all bankruptcies occur because of debt for medical care? We all end up paying for it anyway.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have medical, dental and optical coverage. Do you think it's a good thing that you have no coverage? Or do you think that by your military service you, perhaps, earned the right to have the same coverage as the members of Congress and the president legislated for themselves?

Bush has all the money in the world to wage war, why not to cover our children's medical needs? Are you aware that about 50% of all bankruptcies occur because of debt for medical care? We all end up paying for it anyway.

All irrelevant to the point. The LAW and program exist, Bush has been clear all along he will Veto the attempt to increase the criteria for who gets coverage. If Democrats really cared they would extend the program and then fight for what they claim we need.

The Democrats can not claim Bush is to blame for the people already covered losing that coverage when they refuse to act.

They would rather play politics.

Further they have no compelling information nor backing that THEIR claim is any more right then the President's. In fact the President has provided information on why the new law is not what he can or will sign. It is solid and provable. People that already CAN afford insurance will , under the new law, be able to shift that to the Government. And the Democrats do not deny that will happen.

 

[jillian]

Are you capable of having ANY conversation that involves republicans and President Bush and deciding what WE think? Yoo lack patience because on this issue you are wrong.

We currently have a law, a program that provides money to needy families with children for their Health Care. Democrats CLAIM more people should be covered. In the process they will ALLOW the current law to end DENYING coverage to ALL and are claiming that it is the President's fault. They would be wrong. He has been very clear on what would happen. The democrats made a decision to cause harm to millions of children to try and score political points. So much for "Compassion" and "caring".

Actually, you're incorrect, as far as I know. The people Bush doesn't want to cover currently ARE covered. He wants to divest them of that coverage. He should NOT get any bill from the Democrats which allows him to do that. If HE changes his position, he'll get a bill. It's up to him, not the democrats. Or should they keep giving him what he wants when we disagree with him and his priorities? Let him take the money for it from Blackwater.

*Edit* And I didn't lack patience today because I am wrong. I don't believe I am. I lacked patience today because I spent the previous twenty-something hours with nothing to eat or drink because it was our Yom Kippur. Trust me... by the 26th hour, you get pretty cranky.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, you're incorrect, as far as I know. The people Bush doesn't want to cover currently ARE covered. He wants to divest them of that coverage. He should NOT get any bill from the Democrats which allows him to do that. If HE changes his position, he'll get a bill. It's up to him, not the democrats. Or should they keep giving him what he wants when we disagree with him and his priorities? Let him take the money for it from Blackwater.

Your wrong. He has stated for the record on several occasions he will sign any extension of the current program. Blanket statement, he has not said, change the law in any manner. He will sign any extension of the current program/law.

 

[jillian]

Your wrong. He has stated for the record on several occasions he will sign any extension of the current program. Blanket statement, he has not said, change the law in any manner. He will sign any extension of the current program/law.

Not my understanding. But I will look into it further.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From this article alone...

He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

And so kath doesn't claim I am spamming or plagerizing here is the link again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

[jillian]

From this article alone...



And so kath doesn't claim I am spamming or plagerizing here is the link again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I know what Bush is claiming. But...

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

This is more about Bush's desire that the health coverage be privatized. Something many of us don't agree with.

Again, I don't think that either the fact that our politicians have this coverage for themselves or that our resources are being diverted elsewhere are strawmen.

Has Bush given up his own government coverage, given he's so supportive of the private sector and all?