i have my own thoughts but would like to hear some other peoples thoughts as well just to see where others stand on the matter.
2007-10-03 08:43:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
What Bush did was veto a poorly adjusted bill to force congress to actually create one that will help. Now the spin doctors will make it a issue totally blown out of porportion to further the Democrats campaign platform. The truth is this should have been presented for what it truly is, another waste of taxpayers money courtesy of the Democratic party. Raising the income limit for qualification for this would take funds away from the neediest income brackets. And since when do people that procreate without stable futures deserve federal rewards ? It is sad this has been made a kids thing when its really irresponsible parents that cause many of their childrens health issues. America isn't about everything being free, its people are free. If the Govt removed around 15% of the welfare being collected by able bodied recipients it could use the funds to assist food banks. Poor nutrition and unsanitary living conditions tax child health care the most. No form of legislation will ever solve bad parenting that allows those conditions to flourish. It doesn't matter how much money is wasted on needless wars. What matters is when are people going to stop blaming and start doing something about it. How many of those millions of innocent children are the result of rampant indiscriminate breeding and will in turn become rampant indiscriminate breeders. How is this the Govt's fault ? What was done was not to disallow the needy but to screen out the greedy. The bill will now get reworked and signed. You can thank the overwhelming Democratic votes cast last election for this delay in having a bill worthy of Presidential signature.
2007-10-03 08:55:22 · answer #1 · answered by John S 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
John S, azred_tx & M1A1Mike all said it right. None of them mentioned though, the REAL offensive addition to the original bill. It would have opened up elegibility to children of illegals and anchor babies at birth.
This was BAD legislation and the bill was sabotaged intentionally by the left to ensure a veto, just like the guys said before me.
2007-10-03 09:21:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I regard it as nothing more than an example of the Democratic party being more concerned with grandstanding than doing their jobs.
They deliberately added elements to the bill that the president stated he would veto in order to get in a cheap shot.
If the Democrats were as concerned as they claim to be they would be working with the president.
2007-10-03 09:07:55 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The bill that Bush vetoed was NOT designed to offer health care to children; rather, it was designed to FORCE him to veto it so that his opponents may clain "Bush doesn't want your children to have health coverage".
Poorly-designed legislation, regardless of its intent, should always be vetoed.
2007-10-03 08:59:03 · answer #4 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's not up to the government to pay for lazy people's kids.
2007-10-03 09:06:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I find it disgusting - especially since he has no problem providing free universal health care for all the children of Iraq - courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.
2007-10-03 08:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
good job but it doesn't go far enough. i take care of my kids, you take care of yours.
2007-10-03 09:01:44 · answer #7 · answered by andy c 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would tell you, but then I might lose my YA account.
2007-10-03 08:48:37 · answer #8 · answered by The Wiz 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋