all of a sudden, they decided to be fiscally conservative when it comes to the health of children?
2007-10-03 10:03:06 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh wait, I know why! It's because those innocent little kids probally support terror and hate us for our freedom! Of course, the oil companies are just hard working americans trying to earn a buck to scrape by, and as the president says "trying to put food on their family!"
2007-10-03 10:40:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because children don't pay taxes and children don't vote. Look at the active voters. It's mostly old people. That's why politicians pander to the older folks. If a lot of the voters are old people then if you keep them happy they will vote for you. Oil companies are supported because politicians need money for their campaigns for re-election and for their boats and mansions. If the politicians help out the oil companies, they will help the politicians with campaign contributions and other gifts (money). This isn't limited to republicans, democrats do it too.
2007-10-03 10:08:57 · answer #2 · answered by practical thinking 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This has been quite the topic today so I will give you the same answer I gave the last guy to ask
Why should I or anyone else pay for someones health care, this idiotic plan will pay for health care for anyone under the age of 30 and an income under $80,000. If I were the President I would veto the bill as well.
The Federal Government collects taxes, Bush does not give the tax breaks, these come from Congress (which I might add is controlled by the Democrats), Bush just signs the documentation allowing it to happen. Tax cuts for Oil companies is for research in limiting greenhouse gases that you liberals are complaining about causing global warming.
So it is OK to piss an moan about global warming but not OK to give Oil companies an incentive to do anything about it, seems pretty hypocritical to me.
The Constitution of the United States says no where that the Federal Government is responsible for health care.
Clinton may not have spent as much, but the war has added to the deficit, Clinton raised taxes, cut the military down to the bone (which we now have to build back up) and sold half of the governments oil reserves (Elk Hills CA.) which has caused the local gas prices to increase.
2007-10-03 10:07:28 · answer #3 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Because I will never change your closed mind.
Republicans are the worst form of life we hate children,kittens,bunnies and anything that is cute.
If you hear something don't you think you should check it out if it doesn't make sense and stop jumping into what move-on says?????
2007-10-03 10:08:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is "Republicans hate kids".
A longer answer is to wonder about all these "pro-life" religious fanatics who are "pro-life" when it comes to a fetus which is not, and may never be, a human being, but are "pro-death" when it comes to an actual breathing person.
If you support the death penalty, you are not pro-life.
If you do not support health care for all, you are not pro-life.
If you do not support prenatal care for mothers, birth control, head start, education, college scholarships (including Hillary Clinton's proposal of $5000 for each American) you are not pro-life.
If you support the occupation of Iraq, or any of those who support it, you are not pro-life.
If you don't support some measure of gun control, you are not pro-life.
If you do not support God's commandment of protecting the environment, you are not pro-life. If you do not support reducing global warming, reducing air polution, reducing water polution, you are not pro-life.
If you drive a gas guzzling car then you are damaging the environment, supporting terrorism and contributing to the deaths of US servicemen, and you are not pro-life.
How do you stack up?
2007-10-03 10:09:55 · answer #5 · answered by buffytou 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you would bother reading the bill before posting an emotional statement you might get a clue as to why.
Also the manner and timing in which it is being presented is a factor.
But I'm sure none of this matters as long as Bush can be blamed for something, anything!
2007-10-03 10:06:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Honestly, I haven't been keeping up with it, but my first reaction would be to suggest Republicans are thinking of the future in a different way. C'est la vie.
2007-10-03 10:09:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anniekd 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush vetoed the bill,,,by election time 2008,,,he will be out and so will republicans,,as for oil companies ,that's what the war was all about,,America was never in any real danger from terrorist.just my opinion...
2007-10-03 10:08:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The sick kids don't play golf with them at the country club.
2007-10-03 10:08:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They're anything but conservative - radicals would be a better description.
2007-10-03 10:20:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋