There's a huge difference between a veto and a signing statement. You might find the article at this link informative in describing Bush's use/abuse of them.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
And I wish it were just as simple as not *liking* Bush. The truth is I don't trust him.
The president used the 4th veto of his presidency to veto the Children's Health Insurance Plan expansion. I do find it incredibly sad that we can spend 333 million dollars per day on the war in Iraq, but we can't spend 19 million on children's health care. We also spend insane amounts of money on numerous other programs that I consider waaaaay less important than affordable healthcare.
I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up since the President had promised to veto the bill, but I did and now I just feel like crying. I'm devastated and feel like the "bad guys" are winning and the good people and children are losing. What happened to caring about your neighbor? The world is an incredibly depressing place, and I already know that, but I think we have an obligation to make life as good as possible for the kids here. They don't choose what income level their parents are, but sadly whether or not they afford the best healtcare depends on it.
I can't wait until January of 2009. Maybe then my country will stop looking so much like a dictatorship and a little more like a democracy. I'm sick of one little guy with a big case of little-man's syndrome holding all the power and abusing it to a disgusting, appalling degree. When you conservatives come on here to defend your precious President Bush, it will not affect me in the slightest. I will only feel bad that you have been brainwashed by such a complete jerk and waste of oxygen.
All Things Considered, October 3, 2007 · President Bush has made good on his promise to veto a bill to expand a popular children's health insurance program, saying the bill could lead the nation toward a system of socialized medicine.
But backers of the measure, who are working to override the veto, say the president doesn't understand how the bill would actually work.
At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.
"I believe in private medicine," Bush told an audience in Lancaster, Penn., on Wednesday morning. "I believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers."
Not Administered by the Government
But SCHIP isn't the kind of program where government officials make medical decisions. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance.
"Typically, children have a choice from among competing private health-insurance companies," says Stan Dorn, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "There's no federally specified benefits package. There's no individual entitlement."
The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
Health Care Confusion for All
Still, Dorn says the real irony is that the bill, which was negotiated largely by Republicans in the Senate, goes a long way toward meeting the goals that Bush said he wanted for the program.
"It's limited the ability to go up the income scale. It's focused resources on the poorest uninsured kids. It's imposed new duties on states to prevent government funds from crowding out employer coverage," Dorn says.
In other words, the bill addresses all of the president's complaints, including his concern that families with private coverage now will drop it in favor of government-subsidized care.
But it's not just the president who is confused; Democrats are, too. Last week, at a news conference, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the story of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver, the Maryland boy who died earlier this year after an untreated abscessed tooth turned into a brain infection.
"He had a toothache," Hoyer said, "but he didn't have health insurance, and his folks could not access dental care."
Actually, Deamonte Driver did have health insurance. He had Medicaid. His mother just couldn't find a dentist who would accept that Medicaid coverage — which is a whole different problem.
Meanwhile, Congress has continued funding for the SCHIP program through mid-November while the bigger battle plays out. A House override vote on the president's veto is now scheduled for Oct. 18.
Link to article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.
Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.
Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.
"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.
The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.
Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.
Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.
"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.
The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.
The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.
(Editing by Todd Eastham)
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)
I hopef for Fred and/or Mitt, but the drive-bys were too scared of Mitt so took him out. He's got the whole thing going for him. But the Mormon thing was over-played by the DB media. Funny how it matters not one iota where Henry Reid is concerned, that corrupt, little twit. Just say Rush's briefcase and that's plenty! Talk about making the entire Dem. Senate look like the fools they already are with the lowest approval rating in history. But they just put Bush's approval numbers out there to fool the American public into (a) hiding their own shameful numbers and (b) showing how ignorant they are for essentially running against a lame duck.
When my party does stupid crap I don't let 'em slide. Why the Dems have no rules in their party is beyond me.
Yet another reason why I am voting for Fred Thompson in the primaries...
he opposes a nationwide ban on abortion. He says it should be up to the individual states, put to a vote of the people, not decided by Congress (who would not touch it anyway or they would have already) or activist judges (who overturned a state law with Roe vs. Wade, which is unconstitutional and should be overturned...the only entity the constitution allows to make low is Congress either at state or federal level...NOT judges). The point being, THAT is the democratic, American way to do it. Let the people speak and let it stand. I am sure some states would allow abortion, others would not. But at least it is put to the vote of the people. Let us as individuals have choice also. There would still be places to obtain abortion if that is someone's choice, but if the majority of a state does not want abortion legal, they should not have to have it legal. That is what democracy is all about. Right? Why would any of you have a problem with letting the people speak?
As to back alley abortions...the numbers of those were very small in proportion to the number of abortions performed when abortion was illegal. Doctors did them illegally as well, under sterile conditions, and no one died. I agree, no one should have died, but women did have a choice. The babies are not given the same consideration.
And again...why is it so abhorent to some that women died from "botched" abortions, but not that unborn children are chopped up or have their skulls collapsed? A woman has a choice whether or not to subject herself to a "back alley" abortion. That child has no choice, no place to go, just to be chopped up or have their skull collapsed. Imagine that being done to an infant 3 minutes old, 1 hour old...being chopped up or having skull collapsed. Then would we call abortionists serial killers?
I just don't get it, how one is so horrifying and people are accepting of other based totally on "choice."
No offense, but if your father attended an abortion or two, especially a partial birth abortion...he might flip back to the other side. I doubt he would be able to forget those images either. I have seen the pictures. I know I will never forget those images.
I have heard Fred Thompson talk about health care...
but I take that sort of thing with a grain of salt anyway. The President can only put forth a plan...it is up to Congress to say yay or nay on it. You need to listen to what your senatorial and representative candidates when it comes their turns. And hold them accountable if they run on one platform and when it comes to a vote they choke. It is in Congress where things like health care will be changed. I believe we the people should, like I have said before, look into the recall procedure (meaning call a representative back to the state he/she came from and sending someone else) if they don't do the job they promised to do. They don't represent us anymore, they represent themselves and the party line and that occurs on both sides. And it needs to change on both sides. I could not vote for any of the Democrat candidates because we have too many core differences, before we ever get to issues. My parents were both Democrats, but had they lived they would not recognize the party as it exists today. It has changed that much.
All I was countering with the Clinton stuff was to illustrate a point...both men are flawed. And George Bush is not an unintelligent man by any stretch. He is just not a slick politician. I know a lot of down-home guys who talk a lot like him, and they are not dummies by any means. You don't get an MBA if you are unintelligent(and please don't go down that he got into harvard and got an MBA because he has money road, it would not be becoming). But I think we can quit rehashing all that and agree to disagree.
I am concerned about healthcare, but it is not my primary concern in the next election cycle.
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc. Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones. They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
McCain wants to privatize SS in Wall St just like
You have to really try to pay attention. Wall St is now subsidized by us. The big money is gone. If GW had his way, everyone's SS would be gone. McCain still wants to privatize SS. Even a rabid republican would see this is a dumb idea.
It's like talking to a brick wall
They don't seem to get it.
Would love to be a fly on the wall if your daughter
got knocked up despite being "taught not to get pregnant". Especially if that mistake were to end up tying her for 18 years of her life to some loser guy, and all the problems that can bring.
So what exactly do you think will happen if the earth's population continues to grow at the rate it's been for the past 50-100 years? What kind of world does that leave your grandchildren? It's too crowded now - how horrible will it be when the earth's population doubles, then triples? Standing-room-only?
From the Wall Street Journal
Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.
Anger - that was Lehman Bros.
Bargaining - TARP anyone?
Depression -
Acceptance -
I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....
It should be $$ for banks, big oil and wall street, right?
x
wall street journal more credible than CNN?
One of them is a link to a video...hard to say that was manufactured. It wasn't...I saw it live. Just leave it up to the people to decide. Both sides presented, and people can do their own research as well. They should not take what I post for the truth, or what anyone posts. It is a place to start to look on their own. I would just advise...both sides...anything on blogs needs to be verified with something a bit more credible.
This is America, and there is nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue. Is there?
This is truly socialism. These banks and rich Wall
Street types would be crying out if they gov't did this for the people, but they are begging for the help now. They had better come up with a plan that includes not big pay days for CEOs, etc. I was watching The View and Whoppi said they need to include something for the people, like wiping out half of the mortgages so the actual people who will benefit the economy, i.e. us because we spend money here in the U.S. can get back on our feets and go out and put some money back in the economy and not have to worry about losing a home, etc. I totally agree with that, but I can pretty much guarantee that will not happen.
Have it your way. Retreat back behind that wall of separation
But do yourself and all of us a favor and simply give the man a chance. Your posts are full of fear and doubt. If you find the simple suggestion that you reach deep down inside yourself and do your part to meet the challenge of healing halfway so intimidating, it is not your time yet. I pray hope will come to you sooner rather than later.
Wall street bonuses expected
Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Wall Street has zero confidence in Obama's
nm
Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts
Some need to pay close attention to this......... it's called welfare handouts. "Entitled mentality". The working class will get NO tax cuts. You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not. It makes perfectly good sense. I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES. He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't. He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits". You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work?
One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]
Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.
President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.
It's not a novel concept, and it's one the GOP supports -- when applied to welfare recipients, at least. "We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks.
marks the location of current message within thread!["](http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=472064181&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News"){kind=small}
![Sphere](http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/iconSphere.gif")
Sphere
