Actually, he just doesn't want to move toward socialism because socialism creates populations of weak, irresposible, and dependant people. Eventually you have masses of people that think someone else owes them food, housing, healthcare etc. They also tend to blame the government for the consequences of their own irresponsible actions (I.E. it's Bush's fault that pregnant women put cigarettes in their mouths and light up) This is not only creates a burden on the few remaining contributors to society, but also steals the lives of the dependant as well. They never learn that they are capable of far more than they ever dreamed of, and never learn the joy of contributing to society. If life is a climb up a cliff, the solution for falling people is NOT more government safety nets, but better climbing gear (the ropes of education), training (moral character, perseverance, responsibility). Yes, some people will fall, and it's good to help them. But a well educated person has a the equipment to recover. And a person of high moral character will not be kept down. In our culture we tend to avoid suffering at all costs. But in times of suffering, we often learn valuable lessons. That's the philosophical answer.
As a side note, the bill he opposed was for an expansion of government health insurance for poor kids, to include middle class kids and "children" up to age 25 years old. President Bush's veto does not take away anything from the current government health insurance program.
2007-10-14 07:14:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chapin 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
First off he isn't against health care for children, he accuatlly wanted to increase the program, but the dems wanted to make it so that every person who makes under $75,000.00 a year to get free health care. That would also mean that a ton of companies would all of a sudden drop your health care, the same way that they did when the penson funds where all of a sudden backed by the Gov, That program went bankrupted with in the first year.
By increasing the tax on ciggettes less people will smoke. So than the program would become underfunded and would have to come from our income taxes.
2007-10-14 06:39:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Though I can't speak for Bush, I do know that this country was founded on certain priciples of freedom and that includes freedom from heavy taxes. It's unfortunate that there are many people out there who can't or won't quit smoking but taxes have to be reasonable - it goes through many channels and bottom line: it isn't the Federal Government's job to impose taxes in order to fund national healthcare plans (see the US constitution for details). So by law he may not have a leg to stand on and ethics are subjective. I find it hard to believe that he chooses tobacco over babies, everything is more complicated than that!
2007-10-14 06:38:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kitty C 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
LOL - at what point do you do more harm to the people than good? At what point do you tax the company into bankruptcy?
Many people quit using those products every time they raise the taxes on them. At what point do people simply refuse to pay the price anymore?
You want to tax tobacco again. Raising the cost of a pack of smoke to something like $10 per pack. At that point the taxes generated will probably approach zero based solely on the fact that most people will refuse to pay the price.
So, how do you fund the new program with a disappearing resource? What about the programs that already depend on those funds that will lose the funds because of the reduced consumption?
Its simple math. $6 for a pack right now. The new taxes would raise the price to $10 per pack. How many people will quit because its simply to expensive to keep doing it?
2007-10-14 06:34:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Regardless of what the anti-smoking nazi's think. The Tabacco industry is responsible for millions of jobs in America. And making sure that these business's can still stay in business is very important to the U.S. Economy. Cigarette's have went up in most states by $2.00 a pack in the past couple years due to taxes. And since you don't live in America then mind your own business.
2007-10-14 06:35:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because, the tobacco tax wouldn't be able to fund the SCHIP health care with its additional recipients, and it would collapse, and thus the children who wouldn't have health care in the first place would lose it.
2007-10-14 06:40:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by ep50 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
do u know why he opposed it? quite simple, he believes in freedom....! im from the UK and we are the united states best friend. if you increase the taxes then millions will be pissed off...!
Why dont you change it to this:
He recently opposed an increase in slave labour intended to pay for child health care in the USA. Thus the children miss out three times.
--------------------
you say its un-Christian? who are u to decide that? im a Christian myself and i believe that your saying total bollocks as your so one-sided. you won't be the person who creates world peace anyway...
2007-10-14 06:58:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
How long do you have to wait to get a doctors appointment? I live in the UK and it takes, on average a week. And we are taxed to death yet the NHS goes from bad to worse.
2007-10-14 06:38:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
nice try liberal...people making up to 80 thousand CAN afford health insurance and contrary to the clinton pap, dont need a handout. read the plan before you comment on it..that would help.
2007-10-14 06:48:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by koalatcomics 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
it potential liberal media bias is in finished rigidity and you seen what they have FILTERED and choose you to make sure. the reality is i choose a president whos human and who can relate to toddlers besides as adults. Bush is extra the president AND the guy than obama will ever wish to be and there is not any longer something incorrect with what he does in case you spot the unfiltered version.
2016-10-22 09:25:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋