V for Veto

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Like some bizarro version of the hero of the 2005 film "V for Vendetta", George Bush awaits the do-gooders with his own sword: his veto pen.

    MSNBC

    So don't get too excited yet, poor kids or parents of.

    Meanwhile...

    AP

    This one you can blame on both Bush and Congress (particularly the Senate), but the fact remains that Bush is going to veto these budget bills when they drop onto his desk. Billions for war, not an extra penny for domestic needs.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Oh give it a rest. If those kids had just gotten a college education inside the womb, they'd have a good enough job for insurance. But they were lazy, so look what happened. :rolleyes:;)
     
  3. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #3
    Oh gawd, tell me about it. I was on the bus this morning with this kid in a stroller, and I was all like "What's the geometrical meaning of the central extension of the algebra of diffeomorphisms of the circle?"

    When I tried to explain to him that the answer was not crapping your pants, and that in the real world sometimes you have to use your head a lilttle, he just starting whining. What, do these kids want hand-outs their whole life?

    I blame the parents.
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    For some reason, I'm thinking when you're telling the poor and the sick, and even those who have insurance but it sucks, that the healthcare system is fine in this country, it just doesn't work anymore. Especially when you're talking about kids. Just like when they say supporting the troops is spending more money to keep them over there for extended time, without the equipment they need, while continuing to not be winning, it doesn't exactly work as well either. Same thing happened with Social Security too.

    You can always fool some people if you repeat the lie enough times, but when they see it for themselves as people are now when it comes to things like healthcare, all it does it backfire, which is exactly what it's doing for them right now.
     
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #5
    So, how are those parents making up to $80K a year going to get healthcare for their kids? Isn't that going to cut into the BMW payments? :eek:
     
  6. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #6
    In today's economy, a family of four with a combined income of $83000 doesn't own a BMW (well, maybe an old used one ;) ).

     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    Where does this number come from? The articles I've seen say that the bill explands coverage from 200% of the federal poverty level to 300%, which would be around $62,000 for a family of four.

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sh...007/09/21/more_schip_revived_but_already.html

    Or, I guess I should say, why is there a discrepancy between the articles?
     
  8. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #8
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    As I suspected, that's the scare tactic number (from Bush's speachwriters).

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...,2313613.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

    Yet another example of that darned liberal media, using Bush's inflated numbers rather than offering an actual explanation.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Bush isn't vetoing this bill because he thinks SCHIP will fail. He's vetoing it because he thinks it will succeed. And if this government program can be successful, conservative orthodoxy takes another blow.
     
  11. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #11
    If by succeed you mean bloat up into Social Security II, Ponzi scheme redux, then yes, you're correct. It doesn't take a financial genius to see this bloated toad a mile off.

    An earlier poster disputed whether the income cutoff was 60K, 80K or whatever, but the bottom line is that unless a program like this is limited to the truly poor, it's just a backdoor way to shift the cost and responsibility of all child related medical coverage to the taxpayers.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    That must be why there is broad bipartisan support for this bill...
     
  13. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    There is no easy way for big oil, mining, corporate farming and the military industrial complex to get their hands on this money. That is the problem these unfortunate fellas face. What a nightmare! All of that tax money and it is not going in their pockets. :eek: How can this be a good idea? There is no 'trickle-down effect'.

    Never mind that employers are dropping medical and dental insurance at record levels. Never mind that the family is not being covered by the employer very often anymore. A single mother at our company pays over $400.00/month for her 3 children. That is nearly one weekly check for an admnistrative specialist. And, it just keeps going up.

    After seeing the incredible rip-off from war profiteering and mismanagement, Bush is absolutely insane to even consider vetoing the one recent bill which would benefit Americans.
     
  14. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    That would be me, pointing that out.

    I think the important point in the article is that in the long run, this is cheaper for all of us. A comprehensive, government run program that has an _economic incentive_ to pursue preventative medicine is going to be a lot cheaper than the crap system we have now. The economics of this stuff is pretty clear.

    Further, what's it like being a conservative? Fundamentally, it seems to me that conservatism is essentially arguing against progress and, once progress is made, arguing against more progress. Look at your post. "Unless a program like this is limited to the truly poor, it's just a backdoor way to shift the cost and responsibility of all child related medical coverage to the taxpayers." Ten years ago conservatives such as yourself argued that any coverage of kids under a government program like SCHIP is step in the wrong direction and therefore shouldn't be done. Now it's proven successful and would be hard to argue against. So the conservative response? Well, OK, we were wrong about that first step being a bad idea, but a second step would be a _disaster_.
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    And as a taxpayer, I'd much rather pay for some poor kid's healthcare than this damn war, or for Bush's illegal wiretapping, or for any of the other crap this administration has done in the past 7 years.
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    Nationalized healthcare is much much cheaper than the ridiculous system that the U.S. has. Reasons I can think of:

    1) healthcare insurance companies have massive overhead, and are far less efficient than even government bureaucracy.

    2) regulatory and legal costs are insane, and it is obviously much more expensive to regulate thousands of little insurance companies.

    3) a system that profits off of not treating patients and has little incentive to provide preventative care (because individuals are fairly likely to move on to new jobs and therefore migrate to new insurance companies) is more expensive in the long run than a system that has economic incentive to prodive preventative treatment.

    3) emergency rooms.
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17

    Exactly. And I don't think taxes would have to be raised either, we'd just have to stop spending money on mindless crap, like the war. It's like when you were a kid and you wanted a new, really expensive toy so your parents told you to stop spending your money on stuff like candy, and you did, and you were able to afford that toy. Just on a much larger scale.
     
  18. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #18
    Really? Look at what percentages of the overall budget go to military spending (even with the war) and what percentage goes to social service related items.

    I don't have a problem with the government creating a subsidized HMO for people that don't have insurance, but I don't see why those of us that are either self insured or have our own insurance through work should have to participate or pay into it.

    The only people I see rallying behind this are a) those on the receiving end that don't pay for anything anyway and b) those that get votes of people that will vote for any handouts.
     
  19. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    Reduce military spending (because ideally, if we weren't in Iraq, we wouldn't spend as much on the military) and redirect that money to social programs.

    And I currently have health insurance, and I favor universal healthcare. The insurance companies are about making profit and nothing else, they don't actually care about the well being of their customers. Denied claims, outrageous copays and deductibles, so on and so forth. I don't want some insurance company telling me that I can't have X done because it's a preexisting condition. Adequate healthcare is something that should be provided to every citizen, and I'd hardly call the crap insurance companies pull "adequate"
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    I hate to say this, but the war is chickenfeed compared to healthcare. The Iraq war has so far cost, what, $450+ billion over 4.5 years?

    http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

    Next year is budgeted at $190 billion? I don't feel like looking this all up, but let's say it's $300 or 400 billion a year when you add in everything its costing us including future care of wounded soldiers and increased AID, etc.

    Healthcare is 15% of US GDP, likely to rise to 20% within the next 10-15 years (unless we do something about it). That's what, over $2 trillion a year, rising to $3 trillion in the near future?
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    Because we already are? Because healthcare coverage in this country is lacking, even for those with insurance? Because it's not children's fault their parents are poor, for whatever reason, nor their fault that they're sick? And because, if it was me in that situation, I'd want help if I couldn't get it otherwise? Because we're not terrible people and believe in helping our fellow citizens, especially children, when they need it?

    Same reasons even those of us without kids pay for schools and such, for the betterment of society.

    You're forgetting those of us with social consciouses who understand how society is supposed to work.
     
  22. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #22
    And there should be a special fund set up so you socially conscious people can contribute to this. If money floods in to that fund to the point that it demonstrates overwhelming support of the concept, them I'll conceed that "we" should pay for it.

    Get started.
     
  23. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #23

    Are you making this up? Check the treasury department's web page. Or here's a pretty picture for you:

    http://thebudgetgraph.com/site/inde...s_id=1&zenid=1bd04f55ea9a41c7dd68a8961b4c0e27

    In case you don't read it, I'll summarize.

    2008 Federal Budget (total): $1 trillion
    Department of defense: $481 billion (an increase of 11% over 2007)
    (not including war on terror related activities)
    War on terror (including Iraq): $45 billion
    Dept. of Education: $56 billion, meaning we spend almost 10x as much on killing people, or researching better ways to kill them, as we do on educating them
    Health and Human services (where most of your "programs" are): $68 billion

    I'm obviously leaving quite a bit out. But the gist of the story is that military spending alone is twice the amount of non-military discretionary spending, and that includes ALL government programs including such "optional" or "socialist" programs as the departments of energy, agriculture, transportation, etc.

    So given a cold dose of actual facts, which seem to be missing from most every conservative argument I hear these days on or offline (with the possible exception of Desertrat), how do you defend your statement quoted above?
     
  24. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #24
    I'm about as anti-increase taxes as it gets, but it's really hard to take the right seriously when they go on and on about tax cuts and not increasing spending on things like education and healthcare when they're shipping ungodly amounts of money out the door in order to kill people.
     
  25. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #25
    Thank you for proving why gov has to do this, because people like you certainly won't.

    You aren't an island Swarmie, no matter how much you seem to think you are.
     

Share This Page