News-Record.com

"...and nothing for America's children?"

Boy oh boy, I hope the federal government gives me nothing next year.

Heck, I'd even be happy with half of Mr. Kollar's "nothing." I'd still easily make Forbes 400.

Roger

Seems like I've read this before!

`

Here's the meat of the matter:

"The cost of this children's health insurance proposal is the same as we spend in 40 days of war in Iraq."

Some 'get it' and some don't.

`

Mr. Kollar, that "compassionate conservative" never truly existed. That was just a phrase to fool the gullible voter into casting his/her lot with the wrong candidate.

Shalom

Agreed, Darryl. President Bush is certainly no conservative.

Roger

Roger, as noted I do not feel that Shrub is either; compassionate nor conservative!

The actions of Shrub show no measure of compassion.

As for conservative (in the sense of his republican affiliation), That is a no brainer!

Sadly, most of this is just politics as usual. Enough of the basic people have to finally take a stand and enact change for things to truly change. Until then, we get what we have now. How sad.

Shalom

Yesterday's New York Times had a great article on the missteps that led up to the SCHIP veto (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05health.html?ex=1351918800&en=dead31d99374829d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss ). In the politics as usual category, the White House was peeved through most of the discussion that Democrats weren't willing to lard their bill with health care tax cuts.

Wonder how many times the left wing NR going to run these letters. Of course it beats running lte about the corruption in NC, sinced they endorsed all the crooks.

Darryl,

Yeah, to think that the Bush-approved 20% increase in a welfare program could somehow be viewed as "conservative"...

You're right about politics as usual, though. On both sides of the aisle. Dave's link had some especially interesting bits near the end, and another at US News offered a story in which Rahm Emanuel, D-Il admitted, "If he vetoes the bill, it's a political victory for us."

It's not about the children. If it were then they'd fight it out like the immigration bill and drum up support to veto-proof it. Win it and be happy or lose it and drop it. But they won't because the end result is unimportant. What is important is the in-between arguments so the clips can be played in future campaign commercials. It's being used the same way the war is used. Potential political power is more important than any limping soldier or any coughing child.

And people who giddily watch the political brow-beatings will continue to vote for them while the rest watch TV, fate of the country be damned.

But this administration's clear embrace of the War Powers Clause and subsequent disdain for the Health Care Clause of the Constitution is disgusting and, if nothing else, it certainly shows where their priorities lie.

Roger

Darryl,
One thing about it, Bush sure did hoodwink a ton of ignorant voters into thinking he was either "compassionate" OR "conservative" or both. The current cheerleaders for Bush, neo, Dan, Dog, Ghost etc. have to be "bottom" of the barrel for the "hooked" ones.
I'm paraphrasing here, but it seems to fit the situation: Blessed are those who do not see, but still believe, but woe be to those WHO SEE, YET STILL DO NOT BELIEVE!

If one were paying attention, they would KNOW what a botch, or "f-up" the President is, but some see and STILL don't get it.

From the LTE -

"Why $46 billion for war and nothing for America's children?"

"The cost of this children's health insurance proposal is the same as we spend in 40 days of war in Iraq."

I suppose it would do no good at all to mention that defense is the job of the Federal government, and health care is not. Or that President Bush proposed an increase in the SCHIP program, but the Democrat "leaders" in Congress insist on a bigger increase?

Some get it and some don't.

Nic,
You should thank your lucky stars that being stupid is NOT against the law.

Again, the meat of the matter:
"The cost of this children's health insurance proposal is the same as we spend in 40 days of war in Iraq."

" I suppose it would do no good at all to mention that defense is the job of the Federal government, and health care is not. Or that President Bush proposed an increase in the SCHIP program, but the Democrat "leaders" in Congress insist on a bigger increase?"

Good point Nic, but not only Democrat leaders. Many Rs are busy spending our money nowadays. According to this link and others I've seen, Bush wanted to increase the program from $25 billion to $30 billion. Congress, including many R's, wanted to expand it from $25 billion to $60 billion.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77264.php

According to Tobacco Free Kids, hardly a group sympathetic to the tobacco industry, FY 2006 Federal cigarette tax revenues were $7.3 billion.

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0108.pdf

I can't find cig tax revenues by state, but close to home is an interesting article. NC increased it's tax from 5 cents to 35 cents per pack, which resulted in an additional $157 million in revenue.

http://www.ncdhhs.gov/pressrel/7-16-07.htm

This is also interesting:

"The Centers for Disease Control now estimates that smoking-caused health care costs total $10.28 per pack sold and consumed in the United States."

If states are earning cig tax money in the hundreds of millions and even if the Feds chipped in all of their $7.3 billion (which I'm sure isn't laying idle in a bank account), where is $60 billion going to come from for funding SCHIP? Hint, hint, not only from cigarette sales as we've been told by the politicians.

Nice dodge on the facts, Blogbully. Maybe I need to point out again the defense IS the job of the Federal government, health care is NOT.

I am glad that stupidity is not against the law. If it were, and you were arrested and convicted (the evidence is there with each new post), my day would have far fewer laughs!