President Bush has vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion

[spanone]

just posted on CNN

[SteelPenguin]

1. 35 billion over 5 years.

so 7 billion a year.

How much do we spend in Iraq per day again?

[Jim__]

3. Exactly! While he requests $190 billion for Iraq for 1 year.

War over children's health by an almost 30 to 1 margin. Maybe even the pukes will vote to override his veto.

[Jacobin]

5. I think they should publicize the war costs 'over 5 years' , too

Lessee, here, uhm 190 times 5 equals........HOLY SHIT, we can't say that!!

[SteelPenguin]

10. I doubt it

I've lost any faith I ever had that there were Republicans capable of actually seeing reason.

Why did he veto it? Because it would reduce choice of health care for people, and would encourage people who could buy private insurance to use the governmentment insurance.

Let's parse that for just a second. Bush is saying that people, if given the option, would obviously choose the government paid health care of sChip over a private plan. Why? Becuase it would be cheaper, and provide more benefits for their children than a comparable private plan, otherwise nobody would switch to it. People would switch for 1)cost and 2)efficacy.

So basically Bush is vetoing a bill because, and these are his reasons, people would put a preference on a government health program because it would be cheaper for them, and more effective at protecting their children.

These people will see logic? They're the same people who will turn around and decry the horrors of government run health care, even though people obviously prefer it, hence this veto.

Oh and in the meantime more children in this country will go without health coverage. Yay!

[spanone]

6. last I heard, 720 MILLION PER DAY

[SteelPenguin]

12. So they'd rather spend that per day for war, than per month for health care

...for children no less.

Yay Bush!

[Botany]

8. 2 billion per week

2,000,000,000/7 = 285,714,285.71 per day

$11,904,761.90 per hour

[liberal renegade]

2. I'm shocked

:sarcasm:

[Froward69]

4. And Somehow, Its the Dems fault????

[malaise]

7. Good

Let his base know how much he cares about their children

[atreides1]

14. You're Assuming Something

You assume that his base even cares about children at all, much less their own children. Remember that his base is made up of people who don't have a problem with sending their children to die in a war that was based on smoke and mirrors and would glady send more of their children if they could.

His base could care less about children, yours, mine, or their own!

[judaspriestess]

9. and are the Dems going to bring light to this?

or just happily and quietly take the veto?

[spanone]

11. no signing statement??? no rose garden ceremony??? fuck you junior

[Blue_Roses]

13. What an SOB!

There aren't enough words for the anger I feel for this man...:argh:

[reality based]

15. "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these,

...you did not do for me." Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 25:45 (NIV) So much for the decider's favorite philosopher.

[radfringe]

16. no surprise

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1956936&mesg_id=1956936

[Deep13]

17. No! Bad president, no Scotch!

[texastoast]

18. Your point?

You KNOW we have to subsidize Halliburton. :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

19. More of that compassionate conservativism.

It's pretty obvious that the boy-king does this stuff as a big 'fuck you, I can do anything I want' to to the majority of Americans. He really wants to leave office with a 0% approval rating. Idiot. If he wanted that, he should have signed the legislation. The only ones left who approve of his incompetence are the reactionaries and anti-socialists whack-jobs that hate anything progressive or enlightening.

[Clark2008]

20. I actually agree with him on this, although not for the same reasons.

I think EVERYONE should pay taxes to fund this - not just a dwindling group of "sinners."