Does President Bush care more about Iraqi children than American children? Why veto?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_veto

For those who believe this is no more than a Democrat bill, please try and read:
First line of the article;
{WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday was ready to veto legislation that passed with bipartisan support to dramatically expand government-provided health insurance for children.}
Bipartisan. Both parties.But giving billions to Iraq is okay?

Uh lordkelv, here is your statement;
"Socialized medicine will bankrupt this country" but the illegal war in Iraq won't? Your premise is BS.

Answer 1

I think it's Bush's misguided attempt to prove that Republicans can be fiscally conservative. He doesn't actually think about the lives that are affected. As a VERY privileged rich kid, he never knew or wondered, how the other 99% of America lived. Sad.

Answer 2

The bill is crap.. it doesn't do what it claims to do.. it could be done much better and cheaper than this boondoggle has proposed.... That's why the Constitution grants the President the power of the Veto... if it is such a good bill the Veto can be over ridden.... Socialized medicine will bankrupt this country.

Answer 3

He doesn't. It's not true. That's simply Democrat propaganda, and as cheap and transparent and despicable as it truly is, some folks apparently buy into it.

Bush is against "radically" expanding the S-CHIP program to include the children of people who CAN afford health insurance, especially when it isn't currently being fully used by those who can and should use it.

Bush told the Dems he was willing to expand it to some extent, but not to the extent the Dems did. They chose to ignore Bush, refused to compromise, and sent him a bill he told them he'd veto.

So the Dems are playing politics with childrens' health care, and then turning around and getting their minions to parrot their propaganda about it.

Answer 4

It seemed to me that he was interested in making the bill so the people who really needed the coverage would be serviced first, he also didn't want the coverage to be funded by an increase in cigarette tax

I believe it can be overturned too, as could the bill vetoed in October... so it isn't only Bush who is opposed to this bill!!!

Answer 5

The children's healthcare bill he vetoed would have provided free healthcare to children whose parents earn up to $80,000 per year. He wants that number lowered, so that the benefits can be provided to those who are truly needy.

It's the Democrats who, knowing this, gave him a bill they knew he'd veto, so they could score points in the public's eye. If they Democrats really cared about these kids, they'd have sent him a bill with a realistic earnings cap.

Vote for Rudy!

Answer 6

They basically sent him the same bill. Did you not read the article? Why would he sign it now?

If this ends up passing, what do you want to bet that because it doesn't cover the poorer of the kids, he'll get blamed for it?

Answer 7

Hey Rick K, $80,000 doesn't go far for a family of four in California, New Jersey, New York or Massachusetts. Maybe you should do some research before opening your mouth.

Answer 8

no, the opportunities in the 2 countries are incomparable.

Answer 9

No he doesn't care more about the iraqi children...

I'd say he cares about both equally...

That is, he doesn't care about either of them.

edit: and will you people stop saying thats the liberal media...IT IS A FACT THAT HE VETOED THE PREVIOUS BILL AND IT IS A FACT THAT HE WANTS TO VETO THIS ONE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF GOD HIMSELF WAS THE ANCHOR, FACT IS FACT!

Hopefully you guys can read caps a little better than proper English.

Answer 10

i don't actually think he cares about either.

but the $12 billion a MONTH currently being WASTED in iraq don't benefit their kids - but the multi national corporations that eisenhower warned us about...