right in the State of the Union Address less than a month ago. And everyone applauded.
And now he is cutting the very assistance he promised to increase. Anyone else notice this?
2007-02-19
02:07:32
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Jessica, two comments - squatting by posting a message with a single character "d" is not allowed. I won't have your response deleted, though, because you might not realize this.
Second, I don't recall that the President promised more private charity for sick children. I am pretty sure he was talking about federal assistance to states for medical insurance.
2007-02-19
02:21:03 ·
update #1
Jessica, two comments - squatting by posting a message with a single character "d" is not allowed. I won't have your response deleted, though, because you might not realize this.
Second, I don't recall that the President promised more private charity for sick children. I am pretty sure he was talking about federal assistance to states for medical insurance.
2007-02-19
02:21:42 ·
update #2
Here is a link to the situation
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/statements/presidents-budget.html
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_5165817
You can look up more about SCHIP in the President's proposed Budget
2007-02-19
02:24:39 ·
update #3
Got to give us a source so we can read about it ourselves. You seem to be the only one who has heard this.
2007-02-19 02:17:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Someone asked for links:
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=86486
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0209/p01s01-uspo.html
"The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/vets.budget.ap/index.html
"Moreover, the vast portion of these cuts will aid high-income households. Thus, the Administration is saying in blunt terms that even with the decline in the budget surplus and the war on terrorism, it is more important to cut taxes for high-income households in 2011 than it is to maintain the current social safety net."
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/gale/20020210.htm
2007-02-19 10:20:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by S. B. 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I didn't know that he had made such a promise, since I didn't watch the address. (I can't stand to watch or listen to the man.) Unfortunately, though, this doesn't surprise me. I guess we know where his priorities are. After all, he'd rather spend billions sending thousands off to die in a war that was based on a lie rather than do something to improve the lives of disadvantaged children.
2007-02-19 10:15:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by tangerine 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
In effect the childrens health is taking a back seat to his illegal and criminal acts of war. This man is not to be trusted with the country and why people voted for him, I can't imagine. The argument is and was that he was better then Kerry or Gore, I wonder how on earth they could come to that conclusion.
2007-02-19 10:14:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
He needs more money for Iraq. Healthcare isn't an option in his budget plan.
2007-02-19 10:39:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by cynical 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
POOR PEOPLE CAN AND DO GO TO THE HOSPITAL EVERY SINGLE DAY AND RECEIVE FREE MEDICAL SERVICES...
It's called Charity Care and exists in every State. The people who need assistance the most are the lower-middle income people--i.e., those who actually work and at least give some thought to procreation.
In any event, Conservatives give almost twice as much to charity as Liberals. Why don't you underachieving Libs go out into the workplace and then offer a tithing to your favorite poor family like Conservatives do every day. All you have to do is rise up out of your mom's basement and take a job.
2007-02-19 10:09:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
6⤋
Because it has nothing to do with "being the strongest nation in the world" and " leading the world in the direction of a New World Order".
2007-02-19 10:14:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
The real question to ponder is why voters are so gullible as to believe these scumsuckers' promisses in the first place!
2007-02-19 10:18:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
That's how he is planning to cover the shortfall in the 'No Child Left Behind' act. If a few kids have to die to balance the budget, then republicans don't see the problem.
2007-02-19 10:12:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
Gotta have the money to help rebuild Iraq, It's a shame our children have to foot the bill for the Iraqi children,huh ?( compassionate Christian organization,my As$)
2007-02-19 10:12:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋