Bush continues to work towards complete destruction of the GOP

I wish we could restart this country, and revert back to the times when the average man knew he had to work for the survival of himself and those whom he chose to support, without punishing those who do well in a capitalist society with the responsibility to constantly increase the milk flow from the tit.

Its not like I am unaware that some have enough money to where they will never use it, but as Howard Roark once said... "The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice"

Government programs such as Healthcare, Social Security, Income Tax, Unemployment, are all trash and need to be scrapped. We need to equalize the value of an individual in society, not in a communistic sense, but in the sense that even a poor person can succeed, granted with more effort.

The government should exist only to protect the people and regulate international regulations. The States need more power, both parties are corrupt and now contradictory.

 

I didn't realize George W. Bush hated sick children.

 

Never mind that the capitalist society benefits from having a healthy population and those people being "punished" actually make a ton more money in the long-run.

 

I don't know much about this bill, but I thought I read somewhere that loopholes in this bill would allow for adults to access the plan as well as funding the middle class.

If a democrat in here can explain to me in full the details of this plan and what it does I'd like to evaluate for myself the veto. If one can't...then why is anyone complaining?

 

Does the bill define how many children they need to have to be eligible? These details are important. I know a lot of people hate Bush and assume everything he does is dumb or mean-spirited, but there could be legit reasons for vetoing this bill in favor of drawing up a better one.

 

It is alternatively hilarious and sad that asking people who benefit the most from having a stable, functional society and government are the ones who feel they are being "punished" when asked to help foot the bill for enabling the background conditions that led to their success.

 

It's an interesting situation.

Should the well off help the not well off? Absolutely.

Should they be forced to do so against their will? I don't know about that one.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/177vjfix.asp

This is a good read explaining the problems with this bill. And regarding the "low income" families who would be included:

"Rather than keep S-Chip's cap at 200 percent of poverty ($41,300 for a family of four), the bill would raise it to 300 percent ($61,950) nationally and even higher in New Jersey ($72,285) and New York ($82,300). Sure enough, 18 Republican senators and 45 GOP members of the House voted for it.

The worst part of S-chip isn't its cost but the massive crowding-out effect it produces. Millions of kids with private health insurance would drop that coverage and sign up for S-chip instead, because it's "free." S-chip is an offer few could refuse. The Congressional Budget Office says two million children would make the switch, and that is among the more conservative estimates."

 

Jesus! Just read the damn article. You might learn something about the bill itself and be able to debate its merits(or lack thereof) instead of turning this into yet another "Bush is the anti-Christ" thread.

 

SamFisher- I don't engage in the politcal blah blah here, because I realize that fundamentally the arguments here are just based in semantics. That kind of argument is one in which there is no end game for either parties and is one of those A vs. B situations.

Your statement is " I find it alternatively hilarious and sad that asking people who benefit the most from having a stable, functional society and government are the ones who feel they are being "punished" when asked to help foot the bill for enabling the background conditions that led to their success.

I respect your presence on this board as someone who writes very well and is obviously an intelligent liberal. I see this angle as genuine and do not repudiate it as stupid. I don't find your difference "hilarious or sad" I find it the necessary yin to the yang, for the success that America as a country has acheived.

My friend.... Who creates a stable society? If a man does not build, where does men dwell? What are the cogs of a functional society. If our society is a machine and an engine, then what is the energy/fuel? Punishment was a strong word, not as precise maybe as I should have made it.

There have been many great people in Americas history that our famous for their role in a functional society. There are tenfold more for every single known man, that were not known. There execution of their everyday life, their work, their effort, created this country. These are the men that "enabled the background conditions" for similar future people to succeed. Do not credit someone with being not successful or functional in our system. Do not justify that by saying, "Well there has to be people to walk over!" Thats just not something I can agree with.

Everyone morally and ambitiously acting in our capitalist society has the ability to achieve now. We have fought racism, civil wars, and been a beacon to the world. These are the greatest accomplishments of this country, and this is the type of work we should stick to doing.


There is a sickness of corruption and greed in our system that must be battled and society and the government must team up for this. I acknowledge that noble men in this system, may slip through the cracks and have hardship. But if they are not fighting with apathy, then why would you. But the way to fight that, is continuing to encourage moral, ambitious and free life in America.

 

but...but..but...think of the children!

great picture.

 

That's not what I'm talking about.

You'd be hard pressed to find somebody who has benefitted from a stable society more than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. The enormous amount of influence that governmetn has had in helping them become successful is frequently underestimated -- but should not be.

 

fighting for freedom is illegal?

 

what are you referring to, for example?

 

What is your point?

 

It's like the myth of silicon valley. Nerds in garages came up with computer ideas and invented an entire industry out of just about nothing but brain cells and coffee.

The fact is that the federal government poured money into computer-related research in the area, in national labs, grants to private research institutes, and universities. And it was really, really smart, IMO.

 

this is health care for children, for goodness sake.

 

Well, this begs a different question though.

Instead of trying to expand 10 different programs designed to be applying patches to a broken system, I think we need to rethink healthcare from the ground up.

We need a visionary solution that addresses all these issues. A solution that will give the best health care in the world to many, but guarantee that every American at least gets the level of health care that should be available to the richest nation in the world.

How do we do this and make it affordable? This isn't about this bill, it's something much larger, and I for one would like to see politicians start trying to solve this issue by bringing in some great thinkers who aren't aligned with democrats or republicans, and who aren't aligned with the AMA or hospital groups, or medical manufacturers or pharmecuticals.

The system is broke, and an additional 7 billion won't fix it. That doesn't mean I don't support the bill, but I think this is being used more for political purposes than to actually try to benefit Americans who need a better system.