I don't know how anyone can call him/herself a Republican these days!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
2007-09-20 03:56:09 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
$35 billion I mean - they've spent $453 TRILLION on the war!
2007-09-20 04:05:37 · update #1
LOL, I love how later on this one is going to bite us in the A S S. In 20-30 years, when we actually need troops for something more useful than the Iraq war, we won't have any kids enlisting in the military. Why, because the GOP doesn't support Children's Health Insurance. A lot will die or suffer serious health problems to where they can't enlist. Plus GOP kids will not enlist since they only believe in advocating a war they would never fight in themselves. So that will cause a major military shortage. I would think Bush would back this one -- but he keeps making mistake after mistake after mistake. 2008 can't come too soon.
2007-09-20 04:28:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Con4Life is pretty funny. Oh, Clinton didn't spend any money on children's health, so we can squander the funds on pointless unprovoked war instead.
Clinton TRIED to fund children's health care, but was blocked by republicans. So naturally he should be ridiculed for that failure. Sometimes conservative logic astounds me.
You know, paying for children's health care just doesn't have the immediate economic stimulation that giving gobs of money to military contractors does. I mean, who would you rather see sailing yachts in the Carribean, doctors, or private contractors? Doctors will just waste the money healing children. Lose lose. Defense contractors, on the other hand, will wisely spend the money on land mines and other munitions that blow away pestiferous third world children. Win win!
To those who claim it isn't the government's job to fund health care--amen! If you were too stupid to have chosen to be born to wealthy parents, you don't deserve decent medical care. And the fact there are a few parents who chose careers that prohibit their ability to pay for child care, or who invested their money in Enron or some other foolish mistake--well, ALL poor parents should watch their children suffer for the errors of these few. Health is not a right but a priveledge. I don't want to hear about some poor child who cannot afford a heart transplant. She should have thought of that before her heart got infected. If she lacks the funds to buy a new heart by the time she turns six, God take her.
I know I chose to be born healthy, to parents who could usually afford to feed and clothe me.
2007-09-20 04:16:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you're slightly off on the numbers there. It's 35 billion, not 35 million.
Haha, you are way off on your numbers. We've spent half a trillion on the war. Not 453 trillion. We spend more a year on free health care than we have in 5 years on this war.
2007-09-20 04:01:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Bush addressed the problem through over $117 billion in initiatives to make good health care coverage more available and affordable, as well as initiatives to improve the options available to people enrolled in the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs.
Extended Availability of SCHIP Funds. Bush's 2003 budget strengthened the SCHIP by making available to states an estimated $3.2 billion in unused SCHIP funds that otherwise would return to the federal treasury. The SCHIP law originally required states that did not use their full SCHIP allotment during the previous three years to return the unused funds. These additional matching funds will enable all states to expand coverage to the uninsured at enhanced Federal match rates.
Extended Transitional Medical Assistance. The budget provides $350 million to continue funding Medicaid for families in transition from welfare to work. This coverage helps to ensure that work pays for families by preventing them from losing their health coverage when they start jobs.
Add it all up. I'm no mathematician but, I think its a little more than $35 million
2007-09-20 04:09:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It shows just where Bush's priorities lie.
All his eggs in this war basket.
WAR MEANS OIL.
OIL MEANS PROFITS for him his family and friends after hes out of office.
Come on....who invested in Bush's first oil company?
BIN LADEN Family!!
Why were Bin Laden family allowed to fly during that no fly period?
Because they are doing favors for eachother.
Why we went into IRAQ when Al Queda centralized was not involved with IRAQ until after America occupied IRAQ
Yet even still....Bush is going on and on about how Iraq is stoppping the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11
Chenney too.
It only shows that not only does Bush not care about america.
Only whats best for him, and all his oil buddies!!!
2007-09-20 04:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
35 Billion, but I it's the housing market's fault not the 100s of billions spent on the war in Iraq.
Oh and Bush doesn't like children.
2007-09-20 04:01:49 · answer #6 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Read my lips: Socialism=BAD Freedom=GOOD! $60 Billion my friend. Children should receive affordable health care and it is up to their responsible parents to provide it for them, not the government! If their are children out there in need of health care and they are not getting it, call Social Services, and they will get help!
Proudly Conservative, and Republican!
2007-09-20 04:08:48 · answer #7 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Why is it the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for children's health insurance.
I provide for my own children, why do I need to support everyone elses as well.
Please quote for me the passage in the Constitution the specifically charges the Federal Government or more specifically the Executive Branch with providing health care. This discussion is more liberal smoke and mirror trying to hide yet another welfare entitlement.
Get a job, get off welfare, stop sticking your hand into my pocket to pay fro crap you think you need but won't pay for yourself.
2007-09-20 04:20:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Its not the governments job to be mommy and daddy. Some families absolutely need help for health care, but many are living very irresponsible lives and our taxes shouldn't have to be spent because of their bad decisions. There needs to be a safety net, but a dependency on the government is anti-American.
2007-09-20 04:11:38 · answer #9 · answered by gracilism 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Initially, the only job of the gov't is infastructure and protecting our borders. Do you really want a wasteful spending gov't involved in our health care as well?
The gov't is not your daddy, nor should you rely on them for your support.
2007-09-20 04:10:01 · answer #10 · answered by Fred Head 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋