2007-10-04 02:48:52 · 17 answers · asked by bob P 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There is plenty of money available for child health care. He isn't taking money away, he is preventing frivolous money from going in and preventing socialized medicine.
2007-10-04 02:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by mustagme 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Bush avoided a step toward national healthcare and continuous overspending. Money would have been given to children who aren’t even poor. Which then would lead people with private insurance to drop it for this. As a Republican I don’t like Bush but he did the right thing here. Spending is excessive and not being controlled. Which is a serious problem. This would of only of contributed to the problem and given children who aren’t poor money. Maroon liberals would only say, “because he raether spend money getting american soldiers killed than helpin kids”
2007-10-04 10:03:06 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not taking money away, he just doesn't want the law to be expanded to cover "children" up to the age of 27 and families with income 3 times the poverty level. All Congress has to do to continue giving healthcare to deserving children and children in need is to vote to continue the current law. Bush has said he will support that.
2007-10-04 09:53:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
He isn't. He didn't like the terms of that bill, and he had told the Congress that he would veto it if they didn't change it. They didn't change it, and he vetoed it. This morning he said he will help them find more money for it if they are willing to sit down and work with him about it. I hope they do, but the ball is in their court, not President Bush's.
2007-10-04 09:53:43 · answer #4 · answered by Leah 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would take money away from the Iraq war funds. Ask him to give 7 billion to Blackwater or Halliburton, no problem. But give 7 billion for child health care? no way
2007-10-04 09:55:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because the Liberal Pork is bad for children, we are waging a war on OBESITY dont give them PORK!~!
2007-10-04 10:02:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because he hates children. Why are the Liberals ignoring the details of the bill? Politicians vote for bad bills because of the rhetoric that goes into headlines, and the crap on the Internet.
There will never be another politician who will cut any government program ever again. Get out your checkbook!
The US Comptroller warned us about the cost of government and how it will lead to a serious recession, but the Liberals in this country have ignored it (Republicans will lose seats in their districts because they spent too much, but what happens next? We replace them with a Liberal? How is that change?)
2007-10-04 09:51:27 · answer #7 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
simple: the only people he hates more than children are the poor.
so denying poor children health care? its a win/win situation.
besides, ANYTHING is acceptable, just so long as we don't have a program that is anything like the EVIL socialism. wouldn't want that, now would we?
2007-10-04 09:53:49 · answer #8 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
He vetoed again and INCREASE, because Liberal democrats tcked on PORK
2007-10-04 10:16:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's not.Too much emotion and not enough facts= liberal logic.
2007-10-04 09:54:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋