05 Oct 07
That's right, sports fans. A plan for giving health care to uninsured children and paying for it by raising the tax on cigarettes an additional 61 cents/pack WAS VETOED by George today. Oh, the humanity!! The ,am is an embarrassment that just never ceases to amaze me.
I mean, c'mon, man! It's for the chilllldren.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydI think that a $.61 ADDITIONAL tax on a pack of cigarettes is ridiculous. Why should smokers be responsible for paying for insurance for kids?
That's right, sports fans. A plan for giving health care to uninsured children and paying for it by raising the tax on cigarettes an additional 61 cents/pack WAS VETOED by George today. Oh, the humanity!! The ,am is an embarrassment that just never ceases to amaze me.
I mean, c'mon, man! It's for the chilllldren.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydI think you need to read the bill before you decide on it. You seem to be way off on the contents of it. Poor kids are still insured... its called medicaid and it was unharmed. Relax
That's right, sports fans. A plan for giving health care to uninsured children and paying for it by raising the tax on cigarettes an additional 61 cents/pack WAS VETOED by George today. Oh, the humanity!! The ,am is an embarrassment that just never ceases to amaze me.
I mean, c'mon, man! It's for the chilllldren.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou do mean the bill “FOR THE CHILDREN” & “FOR THE POOR CHILDREN”?
That's right, sports fans. A plan for giving health care to uninsured children and paying for it by raising the tax on cigarettes an additional 61 cents/pack WAS VETOED by George today. Oh, the humanity!! The ,am is an embarrassment that just never ceases to amaze me.
I mean, c'mon, man! It's for the chilllldren.
The vetoed bill lists “CHILDREN” as being 25 years of age.
The vetoed bill lists “POOR” as earnings up to £42,000 per annum.
You mean THAT BILL was vetoed? How crass of him! 😀 😵 🙄
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by MacSwainWell, 25... disputable. Most psychologists do tend to think that "real" maturity is reached around the age of 27.
You do mean the bill “FOR THE CHILDREN” & “FOR THE POOR CHILDREN”?
The vetoed bill lists “CHILDREN” as being 25 years of age.
The vetoed bill lists “POOR” as earnings up to £42,000 per annum.
You mean THAT BILL was vetoed? How crass of him! 😀 😵 🙄
As for earning 42.000 pounds a year. Well poverty is a comparison. 42.000 might sound like a lot, but if a hamburger costs 50, then it's not gonna be that much.
AND the bill reads "up to". So it also includes a lot of people earning a lot less than 42.000.
05 Oct 07
I'm glad he vetoed it.
There needs to be a bill support more birth control and more planned parenthood centers.
How do you cure poverty? Stop breeding a system where the poor are rewarded for breeding. Reward them for education and employment and social contribution.
In the US, the more wealthy you become the more of a drain raising a child becomes because you feel social pressure to spend the money to do it properly. The poor do not have any such pressure and are paid tax money for having children they cannot possibly support, much less raise in a health and educated manner.
That is a broken system.
Worst of all, the conservatives fight socialist health care systems and tax hikes and simultaneously fight abortion and birth control due to fundamentalist religious edicts. They're their own worst enemy.
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydCalm down -- Bush did the right thing since this is Madame Hillary's attempt to inflict socialized medicine on the United States. Furthermore, why should the rest of us pay for the health care of someone else's kids? By your logic, since I can't afford to have children, I should spread my seed and have a couple of fun babies because the smokers and everyone else will pay for it -- how utterly irresponsible you must be!
That's right, sports fans. A plan for giving health care to uninsured children and paying for it by raising the tax on cigarettes an additional 61 cents/pack WAS VETOED by George today. Oh, the humanity!! The ,am is an embarrassment that just never ceases to amaze me.
I mean, c'mon, man! It's for the chilllldren.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessThat's interesting that like Al Qaeda, you and the Democrats choose to hide behind innocent children and use them as a shield. You talk about the most vulnerable yet remain silent about the innocent children that have been aborted and flushed down the commode or carved up into little pieces to supply cadaver parts for medical experiments or to be used in Alzheimer drugs. Your cowardice and hypocrisy makes me want to vomit!
A society can choose to either help the most vulnerable or ignore them.
The US is one of the few industrialized states that chooses to ignore them.
A veto of this bill is neither surprising nor out of character.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterUh come again? Let me read my post again...nope, no mention of abortion in there. Where'd you get this from?
That's interesting that like Al Qaeda, you and the Democrats choose to hide behind innocent children and use them as a shield. You talk about the most vulnerable yet remain silent about the innocent children that have been aborted and flushed down the commode or carved up into little pieces to supply cadaver parts for medical experiments or to be used in Alzheimer drugs. Your cowardice and hypocrisy makes me want to vomit!
I'm pretty sure this thread was about a vetoed bill on health care for kids because Bush didn't want to tax smokers.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by shavixmirBut the burgers don't cost £50.
Well, 25... disputable. Most psychologists do tend to think that "real" maturity is reached around the age of 27.
As for earning 42.000 pounds a year. Well poverty is a comparison. 42.000 might sound like a lot, but if a hamburger costs 50, then it's not gonna be that much.
AND the bill reads "up to". So it also includes a lot of people earning a lot less than 42.000.
Nevertheless I agree with you and would consider someone on $42'000 as well not poor, but not greatly off, especially if there are kids around.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by shavixmirThe term "child" usually refers to someone parent dependent. Most countries only allow adults to vote, so voting age should mark the end of "childhood".
Well, 25... disputable. Most psychologists do tend to think that "real" maturity is reached around the age of 27.
As for earning 42.000 pounds a year. Well poverty is a comparison. 42.000 might sound like a lot, but if a hamburger costs 50, then it's not gonna be that much.
AND the bill reads "up to". So it also includes a lot of people earning a lot less than 42.000.
£50 burgers? In that case a more needed bill would be one to supply affordable food to the poor children.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSince you bring up hypocrisy consider this conversation between DSR and a newborn baby:
You talk about the most vulnerable yet remain silent about the innocent children that have been aborted and flushed down the commode....Your cowardice and hypocrisy makes me want to vomit!
DSR: I fought hard to make sure your mother didn't have an abortion.
Baby: Why?
DSR: Because your parents are cruel and idiotic so I'm here to protect you.
Baby: Thanks. But my mom can't pay for my healthcare, will you help?
DSR: Ha! Stick it in your ear baby, it's up to your parents to take care of you now!
Baby: But they don't have enough money to take care of me and they are cruel and idiotic.
Baby: Isn't that like saving a baby deer from drowning in pond after it's mother abandoned it but then allowing it die from starvation because it's mother isn't around to feed it?
DSR: Uh, er, um...Lowsy poor...always wanting a hand out.
Baby: Before you go, can you tell me what irony means?
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessPresident Bush wanted to increase the amount spent on this program by $5Billion, the liberals wanted $35 billion The liberals ... er progressives I keep forgetting they changed what they are called since liberal has such a terrible stigma attached to it, wanted to raise the cigarette tax by 156% or a dollar a pack (maybe they reduced it to 61cents). The fact of the matter is this, taxes on cigarettes are already too high.
A society can choose to either help the most vulnerable or ignore them.
The US is one of the few industrialized states that chooses to ignore them.
A veto of this bill is neither surprising nor out of character.
And here is something to consider, the more expensive you make cigarettes, the more people will quit, thereby reducing your 'sin tax' base. When that becomes too low to pull in the revenue thats needed, what will the progressives tax next? Fast Food? Probably, they haven't figured out yet that the American Taxpaying public is not a endless 'cash cow'. Probably because they think all the money Americans make is their's ... they just graciously let us keep some of it.
And as others have stated, one the man objections to this bill was it be applicable or available to all children regardless of the family's financial status. I'm not sure whether illegal immigrants were entitled as well, but if the progressives had their way I'm sure they would be .... when the children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to any federal program or state program, etc.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzless🙂 That was good.
Since you bring up hypocrisy consider this conversation between DSR and a newborn baby:
DSR: I fought hard to make sure your mother didn't have an abortion.
Baby: Why?
DSR: Because your parents are cruel and idiotic so I'm here to protect you.
Baby: Thanks. But my mom can't pay for my healthcare, will you help?
DSR: Ha! Stick it in your ear baby ...[text shortened]... r...always wanting a hand out.
Baby: Before you go, can you tell me what irony means?
That baby is covered under medicaid, but I'm sure DSR knows that. You seem to be an expert in US healthcare, why do you not know about medicaid?