You can't deny it. Bush vetoed a Bill that would have greatly expanded the Child Health Care program, and yet he keeps funding bills to help foreign children who, for the most part, will be chanting " Death to America" in 20 years. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the Iraqis with funding, but why cut off help from our own people. Hs Bush forgotten which nation elected him into office? ( The second time, at least. The first time the cons on the Supreme Court put him in)
2007-10-05 14:42:23 · 15 answers · asked by FootballFan1012 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, Ah-Ha, I do not want health care for illegal immigrants, and that wasn't the reason Bush vetoed the bill. He said it was "too expensive". And yet somehow, the war in Iraq is not.
2007-10-05 14:51:56 · update #1
If you do not stop the terrorists on their side of the ocean they will bring the fight here. How safe would that be for the kids you are talking about?
2007-10-05 14:49:19 · answer #1 · answered by t. B 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
First; the bill was vetoed because it included health care for "children" up to the age of 25 whose parents combined income was $80,000/year or less. It is a frivolous expense of tax payers money to give health care to an age range that should be able to purchase their own health care... I was able to. The veto was a message to write a less superfluous bill that will help those who actually need help i.e. less combined family income and lower ages. The medias portrayal of Bush hating children is just an attention grabber. Don't get me wrong, the guys not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is getting out of control.
This health care issue is what is going to drive me away from the Democratic party. When did Americans start feeling this entitlement attitude. What happened to working for those things you need. I'll admit that there is definitely something wrong with the current system, but a socialized system won't work, as a matter of fact any government regulated system won't work, as none ever has.
2007-10-05 15:13:14 · answer #2 · answered by david b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the question is why do the Democrats put forward a bill that is over funded and depending on a tax that will depend on how much people smoke. Oh and before you pass that lie about the Supreme court around , remember that the majority of them were liberal or moderate not conservative. They decided according to the constitution and on the strengh of the case. The Democrats had no case. They had violated Florida election law and were requesting illegal recounts.
2007-10-05 14:55:02 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Come on now, let's be sweet about this. First off, we need to gather up ALL the facts ... not just those expressed by the "Move On" children, who seek to deceive and prosper. But do you really think that the very guy who CREATED the Chips Program would seek to under-fund it ? I didn't think so. The truth is, "Senior Booosh" wants an increase .. just NOT the WASTEFUL, EXHORBITANT kind that the lefties devised specifically so that he WOULD have no choice but to veto it, thus making him out to be the horrible villain that millions of us unsuspecting Americans are now led to believe him to be. What would help would be for him to hold a special press conference to explain the deception, but he simply doesn't work like that. He prefers for us to see the light for ourselves, rather than be bored to death with all the DC infighting. Go figger ....
2007-10-05 15:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by HootersvilleBoy 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush vetoed a bill that would have unnecessarily expanded a decent program by subsidizing families that earn over 80 grand a year and "children" up to age 25. His proposals increased the overall budget of said program, but liberals added these heinous expansions of coverage and couched it in terms of "it's for the children" knowing he would veto such an asinine bill.
Now they can falsely claim he doesn't care about children...just like you are!
2007-10-05 14:50:37 · answer #5 · answered by Salsa Shark 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The "Child Health Care program" was really a veiled socialist medicine program for America (which is a disaster and far from a panacea - just ask the Canadians who need emergency treatment) and Bush rightly shot it down!
2007-10-05 14:47:42 · answer #6 · answered by Constitutional Watchdog 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Please, Lib. Kids here in America that truly need medicaid and a whole lot who don't, get the very best health care and are NEVER turned away when going to the emergency room. Your statement about "chanting Iraqis" is very racist of you.
2007-10-05 14:54:17 · answer #7 · answered by ks 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Oh so that makes him seem like he's putting Iraqi children in front of ours? Ummm ok? Shut up. I'm not a Bush supporter, but that's ridiculous.
2007-10-05 14:48:17 · answer #8 · answered by LJ 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
You're mistaken.
George Bush doesn't put ANY child ahead of his ego.
When he said "no child left behind", he meant that he didn't give a damn if they're ALL shoveled onto the garbage heap...
2007-10-05 14:51:59 · answer #9 · answered by St. Hell 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
to justified casualties of war?
2007-10-05 15:14:09 · answer #10 · answered by oregonboy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋