What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
298 Comments
- PistolSO, on 12/13/2007, -53/+123This should be the next GOP slogan: We love children....until they're born.
- blackmage439, on 12/13/2007, -29/+93"This bill does not put poor children first, and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction,"
Dare I say it, that is the smartest thing I ever heard that man say. I hate Bush as much as 75% of this country, but get a clue people. The bill in it's current form would have allowed ADULTS into the program. Do you understand? A bill FOR POOR CHILDREN would have covered adults living in families ABOVE the the median financial income level in the U.S.
SCHIP good.
Funding for "kids" up to 25 years-old in above-median income-earning families bad. - DeviantDragon, on 12/13/2007, -10/+67I really hope that the people that decry Bush for vetoing this are not the same people that support Ron Paul. Cause if they do support RP they're hypocrite. If they don't; however, totally fine opinion for you to express.
- bentman78, on 12/13/2007, -20/+48This bill allowed people up to the age of 25 from median income families into the program. Hardly a bill to help poor children. I thought you were considered an adult at 18 not 25.
- bentman78, on 12/13/2007, -5/+30This is true. A lot of liberals like Paul and I don't understand why. He stands for nothing they do...
- schnikies79, on 12/13/2007, -19/+44Good. I'd love to see a spending cap put on the government for like a 5 year period. Say, no spending increases beyond the inflation rate.
This was a crap bill. It has nothing to do with the president. - kf6zql, on 12/13/2007, -4/+28Ron Paul would have done the same thing, he would have said it's a state issue. Just be aware of that fact as you flame Bush.
- inactive, on 12/13/2007, -17/+39Good.
- drmangrum, on 12/13/2007, -15/+36In this instance, Bush is actually right. Congress still has not addressed the fact that adults are able to garner benefits from the program, or how those who are not poor will gain benefits. The point of the program is to help those who can't get health care the ability to do so, NOT to get those with private healthcare an incentive to move to a goverment program.
- halkeye93, on 12/13/2007, -15/+35Good it shouldn't be the goverments job to take care of everyone. SMALLER GOVERMENT PLEASE!!!!!!!!
- inactive, on 12/13/2007, -57/+77Bush wanted $5 million and congress wanted $35 million. And congress wanted to add people that didn't need it and those that are well past the age of being adults.
Veto was the right thing to do. - jrefenes, on 12/13/2007, -5/+22"free" healthcare is not free. Someone is paying for it.
- chrismgtis, on 12/13/2007, -14/+31RTFA.
Bush said the bill was unacceptable because — like the first one — it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes.
"This bill does not put poor children first, and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction," Bush's statement said. "Ultimately, our nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage."
If that is true, he made the right decision. The last thing we want is higher class families getting ***** for free or cheap that they can already afford. It also says it would raise taxes. I'm sure the lower classes want to pay higher taxes for all that.
I never agree with Bush. I hate his guts, but if that quote is true, I'm with him on that one. - samdu, on 12/13/2007, -22/+39Not the government's job.
- blackmage439, on 12/13/2007, -27/+43This person is absolutely right. Don't let your hatred of Bush cloud the truth. He is a scumbag, that much is true. But this bill was wrong and ill-conceived. Get the facts before you start ripping people for things you don't yourselves understand.
- Willie0248, on 12/13/2007, -7/+20Read the bill before you get wrapped up in BDS. It is nothing like the headline portrays it.
- sHockz, on 12/13/2007, -16/+28Ohhh poor little children. How I cry for ye.
If they called this the "we are expanding the government control through the guise of children" bill, id believe it a bit more.
Good job Bush, he actually did something right.
Seriously though, do we need them dipping their grubby little fingers into your tax dollars anymore than they already are? - marinesniper01, on 12/13/2007, -21/+33Veto was DEFINITELY the right thing to do. Government programs such as these are ridiculous! Why should I have to spend my tax money to take care of some government freeloader that cant support the 9 children he had.
- Mechanized, on 12/13/2007, -12/+22Yay! I don't have to subsidize one more useless failure of a program from a Congress that has just of low approval rating as the President...
- bitt3n, on 12/13/2007, -15/+25ya dammit, I have 12 kids for other people to support. when will politicians start taking responsibility for our nation's children?
- echolyean, on 12/13/2007, -6/+15"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school you're *****. Until you reach military age. Then you're just what we're looking for!" - George Carlin.
- catalysis, on 12/13/2007, -2/+11He says they taste like chicken.
- KaJuN4, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9"I thought you were considered an adult at 18 not 25."
Try telling that to car insurance companies. Thieving bastards. - ReinMasamuri, on 12/13/2007, -17/+25Don't change the subject, Iraq war funding is NOT the panacea for all budgeting concerns. The bill was for people who didn't need it, and was just another way to force people to rely on the government for something they should be able to get for themselves.
- hawkspur, on 12/13/2007, -24/+32How long does it take for us to spend 35 million in Iraq? Five minutes? Maybe we should spend our money on things that actually help our citizens.
- cheesejaguar, on 12/13/2007, -8/+16Everyone knows that the best thing to do when the government is hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, is to increase federal spending!
- MWeather, on 12/13/2007, -5/+13"If that is true, he made the right decision"
That's an awfully big leap of faith to take. - UtahApocalyse, on 12/13/2007, -11/+19I am a Ron Paul supporter and this is one time I agree with Bush
- alternativecatI, on 12/13/2007, -4/+12You guys, even Michael Moore pointed out S-CHIP is a fascist bill. You are using the government to take money from smokers, so you have to rely on them to smoke, and then it gives the money to insurance companies. Listen to Michael Moore talk to Keith Olberman. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eEGn5mYyXmE
- arbiterusa, on 12/13/2007, -10/+18You're not John Galt - you're just some spoiled college kid with more money than sense.
- MWeather, on 12/13/2007, -2/+9The fat ones do. A little lye and methanol, and they're a perfectly viable source of fuel and soap.
- TheHydrogens, on 12/13/2007, -8/+15Yes. Thats life. If you think the government should be a nanny and have complete control and "protect" us from every single little thing that can ever happen, you are entitled to that opinion. Most people won't agree with you. As much as I hate to say it, Bush actually had the right idea on this one, it was a solid decision from a conservative standpoint.
- Rehnborg, on 12/13/2007, -2/+9Actually Lower....11% approval rating for Congress I believe.
- jknevitt, on 12/13/2007, -3/+10And let corporations take you to the cleaners when you need to buy health insurance.
- slois50, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8While I partially agree with you, you seem to miss the fact that the increase would be paid for by an increase in cigarette tax.
Handouts is not what put this country in such a deficit. Take a look at the last 6 years for reference. - imolloy, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8Many health insurance plans cover dependents until they are 25 if they are students, and around 19 otherwise. While I haven't read the specifics of the bill, I would assume they are being consistent with many HMOs. This is just a talking point.
- luftrofl, on 12/13/2007, -3/+9BUT RON PAUL IS GOD HE CAN DO NO WRONG
- Coven, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8yes everybody pays into the system.
- redxii, on 12/13/2007, -4/+10Except illegals. You know.. permanent tourists.
- schnikies79, on 12/13/2007, -4/+10Lets not spend it in the first place, on anything.
- amoirae, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6The person who made the claim is obligated to back it up with proof.
I am not obligated to do his research and make his citations. - MWeather, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7Just one or two thousand billion.
- MindStalker, on 12/13/2007, -6/+11War spending, bad. Excessive welfare for people who don't need it bad.
Saying oh we're spending so much money on the war, why can't we spend a tiny bit of it on excessive welfare makes it alright?
I could care less about the 300 million or whatever this cost. What I care about is that fact that it will further drive UP health care cost for the people not on these programs and lead us to saying, well now we can't afford health care for ourselves, I guess we should have it for everyone now...
Fail FTW - xGORDOx, on 12/13/2007, -14/+19People the age of 25 should not be considered children, they should be considered adults and should have jobs and paying for their own health insurance.
You old enough to drive, drink, go to war, rent a car, etc, then you should be old enough to earn a wage and pay for your insurance.
The veto was the right thing to do, send it back until they get it right! - niczar, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7So basically, young people of meager means shouldn't attempt to get a gradute degree. They should go straight to work for McD's or BlackWater after HighSchool. Ok. Great plan.
- macdude22, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Talk about pro-life, pro-life would be taking care of our own, Americans. Republicans are typically anti-life near as I can tell these days.
And the Dems are anti-balls. Neither of them represent me these days. - MWeather, on 12/13/2007, -7/+11That's what he said: the GOP.
- bibblenorn, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5You know, there are other reasons than lazyness that people have to go on welfare. What if YOU lost your job, and despite constant searching you couldn't find another that would support yourself and your children? Especially in a recessive economy. What if, you as a single parent, were injured badly, unable to go back to work, and disability didn't provide enough money to buy your children food AND health insurance?
I am just saying, although many people on welfare are lazy and trying to get a free ride (I am sure we have all met these people) some people are in genuine need of help. - joebob, on 12/13/2007, -4/+8I'd take a cracked out wino's word on higher authority than anything that comes out of that man's mouth.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is