Do you think he has his priorities out of whack?
2007-09-28 05:28:05 · 33 answers · asked by wyldfyr 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bwana:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
2007-09-28 05:48:16 · update #1
It is not part of the PNAC agenda to help poor kids only to wage an expensive war that puts money in corporate pockets.
2007-09-28 05:57:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
initially, congress is featuring sales articles like drunken sailors! no longer a single plan of theirs isn't without intense beef-rate. it is the main clarification why all of their proposals are being slammed. i'm no longer a substantial Bush fan, however the recent tax and spend healthcare plan replaced into absurd. Do you recognize that it secure monies for those already with private coverage (greater useful than 0.5)? by skill of your way of questioning government controlled something is proper. Sorry, i'm in my view no longer interested in nanny-state politics. I merely desire somebody could arise with a healthcare plan that would not have nonsense addendums for particular pastimes. And particular, conflict is an unpleasant enterprise, yet i could quite have experts waging the conflict interior the middle east than fearing what would desire to take place combating interior our very own borders. i assume you may prefer to bypass away our troops without munitions on the sphere of conflict? we are already sizing down our presence through fact the Iraqis grow to be greater useful knowledgeable.
2016-10-09 23:35:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
madpol - "the God and Greed Coalition" - I love that, I must remember to use it myself.
Bwana - health insurance is a necessity, not a luxury.
The problem with non-wealthy people who side with the conservatives is that they've been brainwashed to believe that they, too, can be billionaires if only they work 24/7, obey their corporate masters, and vote Republican. This is horsesh!t. The only way to get to be a billionaire is to already be a millionaire and invest wisely. It just doesn't happen to ordinary, middle class or working class folks. Get your heads out of the sand and WAKE UP!
"Free" markets are only free for people who already have money.
Oh, and the only children Bush cares about are fetuses, because they can be used to trap women and control them.
2007-09-28 06:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by catrionn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the question is not about whether or not poor kids need healthcare, (or any of you think thats right in the first place)
its about priorities as compared to the vast funds being spent in iraq *compared* to this piddly 'extra' amount to ensure health for the less fortunate.
war with your tax dollar = ok
keeping kids healthy = not ok
actions speak louder than words
'madpol1' wish I could give you 5 thumbs up!
2007-09-28 08:56:33 · answer #4 · answered by angibabi113 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not surprised here. I'm still trying to figure out what children his "No child left behind" plan was referring to. Have you been to your local elementary school for lunch lately? I guess he figured all school aged American children are obese & put them all on a diet!
2007-09-28 07:31:32 · answer #5 · answered by T S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes his priorities are out of wack.
However government mandated healthcare is not the only solution. The market can solve healthcare if we repealed ERISA law and got rid of HMO's etc.......the free market can solve all problems if only we still had one!
2007-09-28 06:29:54 · answer #6 · answered by Beauty&Brains 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I think it's a carefully thought out plan. The arrogance of this administration is amazing. They've gotten away with way worse, why should this be any surprise? I can't believe they keep beating the same "war on terror" drum and people keep marching to it. They've gotten a lot of mileage out of it.
Chi Guy got it right in one sentence.
2007-09-28 06:23:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Bush is just playing to his base. Part of which is the Religious Right, which could care less what happens to babies AFTER birth. After all, Pro-coathanger is really about causing more suffering.
The other important part of Bush's base is the Business Right. They hate to see any of the taxpayer's money not go to them. That's why Government services of any kind are "socialism." And we all know that it's the worst of all sins against the God of the God and Greed Coalition to give a sucker an even break.
2007-09-28 06:06:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
As soon as you find any Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be spending money on health INSURANCE for others' children to the same extent that it is empowered to conduct warfare, then I might, I just might give your question consideration.
And it is INSURANCE, not CARE that is the subject of the bill. Try using facts - they matter to honest people.
---------
The meaning of "promote the general welfare" is not about giving people "bread and circuses". It is about the fostering of freedom and prosperity by keeping to the Rule of Law and obeying the Constitution.
You need to re-read the 10th Amendment - if it isn't ENUMERATED, then it isn't a federal power.
Here's some other quotes:
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison (the guy who WROTE it)
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." - Grover Cleveland
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." - Albert Camus
2007-09-28 05:36:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
A federal bill that Gov. John Lynch hails as "for the children" is a pork barrel so big and blatant as to nearly take one's breath away. So it is in Pelosi's House, which she said would be history's most ethical.
The bill, supposedly an extension of health coverage for "low-income" children, flies under false colors. It extends taxpayer-subsidized coverage to adults and families making more than $80,000 a year. But how Speaker Pelosi's House has hidden pork in the bill is truly absurd.
The New York Times reported last week that the House has "quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Specific Hospitals and Health Care Providers" under the "low-income" children's bill.
For instance, Democrats provide more cash to a hospital in Green Bay, Wisc., more than 200 miles north of Chicago, simply by instructing federal officials to pretend the hospital, not identified by name, is in Chicago.
"Any hospital that is co-located in Marinette, Wis., and Menominee, Mich., is deemed to be located in Chicago," reads the bill's fine print. Only one hospital fits that description and it would receive the higher Medicare rates paid in the big city hundreds of miles away.
The Times reported that the bill "would also direct millions of dollars a year to about 40 favored hospitals, by increasing their Medicare payments."
This Alice-in-Wonderland approach is one of the Democrats' new ways to retain "earmarks," which they campaigned against last year.
Funny, but when Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in New Hampshire last week, we didn't hear her or Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes talk about this taxpayer ripoff. Neither did Gov. Lynch's spokesman mention it.
President Bush needs to veto this incredible spending expansion. But expect more of the same if Shea-Porter and Hodes, now known as the "Pelosi twins," continue in office.
2007-09-28 06:45:24 · answer #10 · answered by GoodTimeDJ 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋