Bush vows to veto children's health care bill ... because it's too costly? - Page 31 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Imperator · #**451** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

back to the topic...I think the title of the topic is misleading to an extent at least in how I see this issue.......it’s not really the cost that’s in question from my perspective but the use of the funds already available and the mission creep regards what schip was ostensibly created for....and where it has gone and going now....

Steve · #**452** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Facts really don't mesh with your hypocrisy, do they?

I don't know. Thus far, very little in the way of facts has been offered here.

I'm given a modest pension in return for my 20 years of service. Yes, that money comes to me from the government. People like you and Danny, however, want to give people something for nothing; no service, no work, nothing.

Danny wants to criticize the US government giving me money, yet he dodges answering the question about Canadian military and government retirees. If he won't even answer the question, his opinion about me receving a pension is worth, exactly, jack-shit...

Americano · #**453** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

back to the topic...I think the title of the topic is misleading to an extent at least in how I see this issue.......it’s not really the cost that’s in question from my perspective but the use of the funds already available and the mission creep regards what schip was ostensibly created for....and where it has gone and going now....

All that really stands out is Bush's statement of child health care requirements should be served by private insurers in a nation ranking 37th in health care with the highest per-capita health care costs in the world. Wouldn't common logic with regard to the number of uninsured dictate something is wrong with that stance regardless of public program strengths/deficiencies?

dannotoronto · #**454** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by proUSA

Bingo.....People like Slon would never understand, not until they've dawn the boots and walked in them.

The military and military pensions wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the working, civilian population whose tax dollars are stolen to finance the leeches that can't get a job without the military.

Americano · #**455** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't know. Thus far, very little in the way of facts has been offered here.

I'm given a modest pension in return for my 20 years of service. Yes, that money comes to me from the government. People like you and Danny, however, want to give people something for nothing; no service, no work, nothing.

Danny wants to criticize the US government giving me money, yet he dodges answering the question about Canadian military and government retirees. If he won't even answer the question, his opinion about me receving a pension is worth, exactly, jack-shit...

You do remain true to form. What contribution do you suggest children make to receive government funds for health care? Or are you still blaming their parents for their inability to furnish the most expensive private coverage in the world and screw the children while you take government money?

Steve · #**456** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannotoronto

The military and military pensions wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the working, civilian population whose tax dollars are stolen to finance the leeches that can't get a job without the military.

The idiocy which resides in you mind is fascinating.

Now, will you answer the question I asked you, or will you continue with your cowardly dodge?

dannotoronto · #**457** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't know. Thus far, very little in the way of facts has been offered here.

I'm given a modest pension in return for my 20 years of service. Yes, that money comes to me from the government. People like you and Danny, however, want to give people something for nothing; no service, no work, nothing.

Danny wants to criticize the US government giving me money, yet he dodges answering the question about Canadian military and government retirees. If he won't even answer the question, his opinion about me receving a pension is worth, exactly, jack-shit...

Um, were you exposed to agent orange or something? How did I dodge your question? I stated that the pension isn't the problem. It's your hypocrisy that is the problem.

I would lose all respect for any Canadian veteran that would accept a government check while denying the same benefit to the very taxpayers that are supporting them! That would the height of arrogance and hypocrisy in my book. I would be saying the very same words to them as I am to you.

You're a hypocrite. You consider past service valuable enough to continue to collect taxpayer dollars, yet you want to deny the same benefit to the very people who are writing that cheque. Basically, you don't want to give any of their money back to them when they need it. You'd rather keep their money for yourself rather than giving it back to them so they can use it for their kid's health care.

Nice attitude, thief.

Owl Mirror · #**458** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Spending in Congress is out of control! Instead of spending your tax dollars responsibly, Congress funds their pet projects costing tax payers millions of dollars each year. As president, John McCain will veto the first pork barrel bill that comes to his desk - we need a strong leader like John McCain to stop this outrageous waste.
John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President

Taxpayers for Common Sense: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Awards - Elected Officials Recipients of 2001

Senators Carl Levin and John McCain are the recipients of the 2001 “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” award for their combined leadership on behalf of taxpayers.

Quote:

These two gentleman have worked tirelessly to get the base closures provision included in this years Defense Authorization bill. This effort alone could save taxpayers more than $20 billion over the next 15 years.
~
Taxpayers from all political stripes thanks these Senators for their leadership and tenacity on behalf of the American taxpayers.
Congress recently approved the 343.3 billion defense bill that approved a new round of military base closings, which will start in 2005.

Vol. XII No. 5: Water Pork Bill Floats Through Congress

Quote:

April 20, 2007

Water Pork Bill Floats Through Congress

Lawmakers this week passed a $16.5 billion water project bill (H.R. 1495), containing more than 800 parochial pork barrel projects for virtually every Congressional district in the nation. This bill has it all: from $1.8 billion to build seven unnecessary new navigation locks on the Upper Mississippi River (pdf) (Sec. 8003) to studying the navigation impacts of building the infamous “Don Young’s Way” bridge project in Alaska (Sec. 4005), to $55 million for pumping sand (pdf) to maintain Imperial Beach, CA for the next 50 years (Sec. 1001 (9)).
~
In a race to get this long stalled bill approved (they've been working on it since 2002), congressional leadership seemed to forget about the fundamental flaws that Hurricane Katrina exposed in the way the Corps of Engineers develops, designs and constructs this country’s water resource projects. In the starkest terms, Katrina showed us (pdf) that the time is long passed to end the political spoils system that has driven water project investment for more than a century. We need a modern, accountable and prioritized system to develop and award projects. It’s a message that Congress has failed to grasp.

Vol. IX No. 36: Debate the Deficit

Quote:

September 10, 2004

Debate the Deficit

In their ruthless efforts to define one another, Senator Kerry and President Bush seem more focused on National Guard duty and Swift Boats than on issues that can really make a difference in the lives of American voters, such as the growing record federal budget deficit.

Amidst all of the political mud slinging in this year's presidential election, many voters may not have even noticed that there has been a complete and utter absence of dialogue over the present fiscal condition of our nation.

Being the bearer of bad news isn't smart during an election year and maybe it doesn't pay to be honest. But, these massive deficits cost us dearly. Just the interest payments on the national debt will cost taxpayers $156 billion this year, and it's only getting worse: Once the economy recovers and interest rates go back up, the interest payments on the debt will skyrocket.

After this week's final pre-election peek at the sorry state of the federal finances, Bush's and Kerry's lack of a fiscal plan has become painfully obvious. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year's deficit will be nearly $50 billion more than last year, hitting $422 billion adding $2.3 trillion in new debt over the next decade.

Sadly, even these outrageous numbers are likely to be pathetically low. This estimate assumes that the tax cuts will expire in 2010, which is as likely as the New York Giants winning the Super Bowl. It also fails to consider the cost of the each candidate's campaign proposals, which will cost us at least a trillion dollars if enacted.

~@~

All this and an individuals military pension for service to our Nation is the whipping-boy of debate ?

Get Real, emulate "Mr. Smith" , rise up and demand accountability from your Government !

Amazon.com: The Pocket Book of Patriotism: Books: Jonathan Foreman

Free copy of the Constitution

Mr Smith Goes to Washington
Jimmy Stewart in another "aw-shucks" role as a newly appointed senator, only to be thrown around in the House of Corruption.

Steve · #**459** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

You do remain true to form. What contribution do you suggest children make to receive government funds for health care? Or are you still blaming their parents for their inability to furnish the most expensive private coverage in the world and screw the children while you take government money?

I'm not suggesting that children make a contribution.

I've never suggested that their parents furnish them with the most expensive coverage in the world (nice try at putting words in my mouth). However, it should be the responsibility of the parents to provide them decent coverage, not you and me.

Your continued attempt to paint my pension in a bad light is, at best, laughable. While you consider me a hypocrite, I could easily paint you in the same. You rail against my pension, yet you argue for government health coverage. Why should I be willing to concede your position when you, so clearly, are taking the same hypocritical position you're accusing me of?

Knowing your absolute hatred and disdain for military personnel, I most inclined to simply dismiss you and your ignorant opinions. If I were to say "give 'em coverage", I suspect you would say that I shouldn't get a pension so children could get even better coverage.

You're nothing but a bad editorial cartoon...

Steve · #**460** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannotoronto

Um, were you exposed to agent orange or something? How did I dodge your question?

"Um", you're joking, right?

I asked if retired Canadian government employees and military personnel receive pensions.

As of 9:13am, PST on Sunday, October 7, you've yet to answer that...

Quote:

I would lose all respect for any Canadian veteran that would accept a government check while denying the same benefit to the very taxpayers that are supporting them!

Really? Which children in Canada are taxpayers?

Quote:

That would the height of arrogance and hypocrisy in my book. I would be saying the very same words to them as I am to you.

And they would laughing at you, much as I am...

Quote:

You're a hypocrite. You consider past service valuable enough to continue to collect taxpayer dollars

No, the government considers past service valuable enough...

Quote:

yet you want to deny the same benefit to the very people who are writing that cheque.

No, I don't. Anyone who retires from the military should collect a pension...

Quote:

Basically, you don't want to give any of their money back to them when they need it. You'd rather keep their money for yourself rather than giving it back to them so they can use it for their kid's health care.

The government deems that I should get a pension. I do. Tough shit...

Quote:

Nice attitude, thief.

And that should get you reported for both name-calling and baiting...

dannotoronto · #**461** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

"The government deems that I should get a pension. I do. Tough shit...

The government deems that needy children should receive taxpayer subsidized health care. Tough shit.

Steve · #**462** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannotoronto

The government deems that needy children should receive taxpayer subsidized health care. Tough shit.

Really?

This past week's veto says otherwise...

Owl Mirror · #**463** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Really?

This past week's veto says otherwise...

You mean President of the United States - George W. Bush constitutes the entire Government ?
Damn ! And here all this time I thought The United States Constitution was the formula we were following.

The United States Constitution#Article1

The United States Constitution#Article2

The United States Constitution #Article3

I almost forgot about that provision in the Constitution which grants the President power to issue
Executive Orders and Signing Statements.

Imperial Presidency 101 - The Unitary Executive Theory, Separation of Powers, and Signing Statements

The view that the President holds total control over the executive branch is called the unitary executive theory.

Quote:

The Unitary Executive Theory: Under the Bush administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory, the President has authority over members of the executive branch, functioning as a CEO or Commander-in-Chief, and his or her power is restricted only by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Judiciary. Congress can hold the President accountable only by censure, impeachment, or constitutional amendment; legislation restricting the executive branch has no power.

This conduct, you find comforting and welcoming in deference to The United States Constitution

Imperator · #**464** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

All that really stands out is Bush's statement of child health care requirements should be served by private insurers in a nation ranking 37th in health care with the highest per-capita health care costs in the world. Wouldn't common logic with regard to the number of uninsured dictate something is wrong with that stance regardless of public program strengths/deficiencies?

this has nothing to do with schip....we are discussing a worthy prgm. to cover children whose families don’t have the resources for medical care. The prgm has , as all gov. entitlements do, began to run amok. I am all in favor of schip, as long as it is consigned to those that need it.

Private insurance and its affects, effects etc. have issues, these need to be addressed certainly, BUT expanding schip beyond its mandate is not one of the viable alternatives imho.

I am not in favor of a wholesale deconstruction of the present form, in favor of serving 10-12 million people......

Owl Mirror · #**465** (**permalink**) 10-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

this has nothing to do with schip....we are discussing a worthy prgm. to cover children whose families don’t have the resources for medical care. The prgm has , as all gov. entitlements do, began to run amok. I am all in favor of schip, as long as it is consigned to those that need it.

Pr