The one time Bush was probably actually HONEST!!
Posted By: MTME on 2005-06-21
In Reply to:
Bob Woodward asked him how history would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
That pretty much sums up the depth of this man.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You mean like to got behind Bush in time of
nm
That's the first time I've seen Mr. Bush
He's the man who's supposed to be in charge of this country at the present time. Blaming the individual Presidential nominees for this is ridiculous. They are one of how many? The entire gov't is responsible for it and Bush is at the top. This mess started when he was in office and he should be responsible for cleaning it up. Perhaps he should give up his salary/pension. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the gov'tal leaders mistakes?
I think politicians should start having to carry malpractice insurance. Doctors are made to be responsible for their errors, so should the politicians.
yes, they will, but not for a long time, thanks to Mr. Bush. NM
x
article from baltimore sun..time for bush to go
From The Baltimore Sun: After Katrina fiasco, time for
Bush to go
After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go
By Gordon Adams
September 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to
Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment
and ideological blinders that should lead to serious
doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed
to continue in office.
When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40
billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years
for homeland security but the officials at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own
hands in broad daylight for four days while New
Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown
and die, it is time for them to go.
When funding for water works and levees in the gulf
region is repeatedly cut by an administration that
seems determined to undermine the public
responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite
clear warnings that the infrastructure could not
survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is
playing politics with the public trust.
When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas
and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign
assistance waits at airports because the government
can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use
the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in
charge, it is time for the administration to leave
town.
When President Bush stays on vacation and attends
social functions for two days in the face of disaster
before finally understanding that people are starving,
crying out and dying, it is time for him to go.
When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are
thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention
center - where people died and were starving - and
fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the
Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the
president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New
Orleans last week.
When Mr. Bush states publicly that nobody could
anticipate a breach of the levee while New Orleans
journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic,
academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had
been doing precisely that for decades, right up
through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed
over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor.
When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear
that tens of thousands of people would be unable to
evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both
money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort
before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to
safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking
papers.
When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in
Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding
while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing,
jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless
insensitivity that should banish him from office.
When the president of the United States points the
finger away from the lame response of his
administration to Katrina and tries to finger local
officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the
culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this
administration to speak truth and hold itself
accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution
of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have
some excuse for failure other than their own
misjudgments.
We have a president who is apparently ill-informed,
lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil
baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and
right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed
officials who give incompetence new meaning, who
replace the positive role of government with expensive
baloney.
They rode into office in a highly contested election,
spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to
undermine the federal government in every way but
defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland
security). One with Grover Norquist, they were
determined to shrink Washington until it was small
enough to drown in a bathtub. Katrina has stripped
the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing
the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind
it.
It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly,
troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich
lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their
strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden
gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and
returned to their caves, clubs in hand.
Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at
the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University, was senior White House budget
official for national security in the Clinton
administration
Bush busted again for the second time in 2 months...
by the courts for criminally violating the US Constitution. When are they going to impeach him? We get 24/7 front page JonBenet coverage (very sad story), but nothing on the crooks in the White House. All the drama with Watergate and Clinton IMO pales in comparison to what is on this President's mantle. What a mess. 
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/082105LINDORFF.shtml
I am not a Republican. Yes, I voted for Bush the first time....
and voted for him the second time because I did not think John Kerry was the right man for the job. If another Democrat had won the nomination I might well have voted Democrat the last round.
The democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years. Their involvement in the fannie/freddie thing and their total unwillingness to accept any of the responsibility has me voting a straight Republican ticket this year and I have NEVER done that before. Because the idea of Barack Obama AND a democratic majority makes NE nauseous. The country deserves better.
Bush, "The Decider" still has time
to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.
I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).
More Double-0 Bush spying, this time on our computers
NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet WriterThu Dec
29, 7:24 AM ET
The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict
federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist
complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency
officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue
raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a
major concern, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy
and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. But it does show a
general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even
following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until
2035 — likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie
use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary,
permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web
browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies
already on.
After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies, he
said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet
browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For
instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that
require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even
if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits
federal agencies from using persistent cookies — those that aren't automatically
deleted right away — unless there is a compelling need.
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them
must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier
version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague
assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not
sufficient.
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said
mistakes happen, but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say
anything about doing it accidentally.
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it
authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court
orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this
month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the
eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from
American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of
domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve
the surfing experience and not to collect personal user data.
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions
whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great
for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does
not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional
visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures
that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track
computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a
congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its
sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
It's "phase"...... time to stop blaming Bush
@@
That was just ignorant. Bush did steal the election but THIS TIME WE WON HAHAHAHAHAHAHA NM
NM
Evidently you forgot Bush has been releasing terrorists for some time.....
Releasing Gitmo prisoners carry risks
Andrew O. Selsky ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, January 29, 2009
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico | The re-emergence of two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners as AL Qaeda terrorists in the past week won't likely change U.S. policy on transfers to Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon says.
More than 100 Saudis have been repatriated from the U.S. military's prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia, where the government puts them through a rehabilitation program designed to encourage them to abandon Islamic extremism and reintegrate into civilian life.
The online boasts by two of these men that they have joined al Qaeda in Yemen underscore that the Saudi system isn't fail-safe, the Pentagon said Monday. A U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington confirmed the men had been Guantanamo detainees. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose that fact on the record.
Another two or three Saudis who had been transferred from Guantanamo cannot be located by the Saudi government, said Christopher Boucek, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. sees the Saudi program as admirable.
"The best you can do is work with partner nations in the international community to ensure that they take the steps to mitigate the threat ex-detainees pose," he said. "There are never any absolute guarantees. There's an inherent risk in all detainee transfers and releases from Guantanamo."
The deprogramming effort -- built on reason, enticements and lengthy talks with psychiatrists, Muslim clerics and sociologists -- is part of a concerted Saudi government effort to counter the ideology that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers and that has lured hundreds of Saudis to join the Iraq insurgency. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis, as is the mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden.
A total of 218 men, including former Guantanamo detainees, have gone through the reintegration program, according to the Saudi Ministry of Interior. Nine were later arrested again, an "official source" at the ministry said in a dispatch from the official Saudi Press Agency. The report said some of the nine were former detainees, but did not give a breakdown.
The Saudi Interior Ministry official said most of the graduates "resumed their natural lives and some of them voluntarily contributed to the activities of this program to help others return to natural life."
Frank Ciluffo, a researcher on security issues at George Washington University, said a program that doesn't work all the time is better than none because the alternative is an extended prison sentence, which only further radicalizes a person.
Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people
on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.
A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.
Can I be honest here? sm
I keep hearing here and there that O will be assassinated, won't live out his term, etc. That grieves me. I am a registered Republican, live in the south, in a small, rural town FULL of white, racist people. I don't know who they voted for, but I honestly don't think that "white" America is ready for a black president. There are too many racist people (I know tons of them) who refer to O as the N word (yes, you heard me right) and this is in small, rural America. I truly believe he probably won't last.
It wasn't that long ago that Rosa Parks sat on that bus and it wasn't that long ago when those precious girls from that black Montgomery church were blown up (during church) and remember Jenna 6 and all of the white people who stood up for the boys.
It's hateful and sickening, yes, but America is still prejudiced as sad as it is to say that. Too many white hate groups. I am in my mid 30s and when I was in college there were very large sects of "skinheads." They are everywhere. They are very prideful. They hate blacks. I am half Hispanic and my family doesn't look white. I've been the subject of racism in the past. People are awful.
Whether you believe in God or not as a liberal, pray for O's safety because I think he is going to need it.
I have to be honest, DW....
when we were debating it I honestly did not realize that some states already provided coverage for all kids no matter what the income level, which seemed to be the sticking point for most of the debaters. The fact that MA and PA could do it, even on the unexpanded program, leads me to believe other states could do it too, if their priorities were in place. Washington is such a goofy place, really...if the Democrats had prefaced it differently and had not used the implicit words to extend it "higher up the income ladder" and just stated they wanted to dole more out to the states so it would be easier for them to insure all the state's kids...I don't think there would have been such an issue. They purposely sent a bill they knew Bush would veto, which is a ridiculous exercise...I think it was purely political election time posturing and misleading to both Democrat and Republican voters. It did what it was intended to do, and that is make a headline that Bush did not want to insure kids, when that is not at all a true statement. That being said...PA and MA DO show that it is possible under current funding, and I am entirely FOR putting it at the discretion of the states how to use the money for their CHIP programs without the interference of the feds other than funding. Now if the states want to impose some kind of taxes to support it, like a penny sales tax or something, to supplement the program in order to do so, I am all in favor of that, if they tailor it to the needs of their state...and who knows better than the state government what that would take? They know their populations, they know their income levels...and they can come up with a better plan. I am 100% on board for that!! It would be interesting to know how MA and PA funded those programs at the current level...because they did. PA's has been around for quite awhile. :-)
Just being honest...
Certainly this poster is entitled to his/her point of view, even if he/she is completely intolerant of anyone else's point of view. The poster speaks of an open mind, yet has a very closed mind himself/herself.
For all the talk that liberals make about freedoms, apparently that only extends to those who agree with them. Sounds more like a fascist state than America.
Condescencion, intolerance...are these the hallmarks of liberalism?
come on, be honest
you laughed at the mental image that statement conjured up also.
Look....if you are going to be honest about this...
just read up on it from start to finish. It was not a big deal, the same guy who is screaming for her head now was saying the governor's office is fully cooperating and subpoenas will not be necessary...and she was, and that was the truth. Now that the Obama lawyers descended it is a whole new ballgame, has been politicized when it should not have been. It should be stopped, it has become a 3-ring circus. THere are pictures now of the two Dems yelling the loudest with Obama yucking it up at a support rally. The investigation is tainted now. The investigator they hired is personal friends with the guy who was fired. Come on now....hatchet job. They need to put in the hands of someone truly independent, don't you think that is fair? Or no?
to be honest...
I'm just going to be honest with you - there is not a whole lot of incentive for those that are on the welfare rolls to get off. Unless you are educated anymore then those low paying minimum wage jobs do not pay what has to be paid for someone to live - even at 2 and 3 jobs.
And most people cannot afford to go to college - even if they have the aptitude for it. Not everybody in this world is cut out for school. It is not just because they are dumb. I have a son who is above average smart, but just cannot handle school - does that make him dumb? No, it means he is going to have to work his butt off though to even barely get by.
And yes, I do think that the richer people of this world should pay more taxes. I don't necessarily know about a higher percentage, but I know that the darn loop holes that exist that keep them from paying as much as I do should be done away with...
I don't want anybody to give me anything, I am doing it all by myself however I have to, and I am luckier than most that I can make a good living, but I can see that some people need help to survive now.
It is not like it used to be - prices have gone up, up, and up, but wages are staying the same and ya'll all know that. You talk about how you did this, or you did that to get by, and you know what, I did too 20 years ago, but 20 years ago I was not paying $5.00 a gallon for milk and $2.69 for a loaf of bread and making $7.50 or $8.00 an hour. I was not paying $3-4 a gallon for gasoline to get to my $7.50 or $8.00 an hour job. I was not paying $600 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment that legally I was not supposed to have my children living in together...
I feel sorry for the young people today that are starting out on their own and I feel sorry for the people that ya'll are all calling stupid and lazy and worthless just because they are not up to your standards. I am so glad that I am not that judgmental of people that I cannot see that people right now need help... and it is getting worse right in front of our eyes.
I sincerely hope that not a one of you who are so down on people that need help in putting their lives together find yourselves in the position of needing help in the future.
He was not honest.
Obama is a socialist. His record and ideals are proof enough of that. All of you lemmings are convinced he handled himself well and are crying out about how unfair he was treated in that interview.....yet if this were Palin....you would be crying how dumb she is and didn't handle things well. Talk about double standards. You people sicken me. I'm so tired of this crap. I will be glad when this election is over and McCain kicks Obama's @ss. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Change......that is ALL you people friggin hear!.
Well.....you better be prepared because God help us if Obama wins.....that is all we will have left in our banks accounts......some change. Get a clue!
Actually no....not get better ones...just be HONEST...
about the ones he HAS. That would be a terrific start. The truth is always a good place to start.
Sam, to be honest, I don't think about it much at all either -
I do not think about abortion because in my life it was/is not an option. That being said, I think it is something that people should have the right to choose if they want to.
Why do you think government should get to meddle in one part of a woman's life and not be able to meddle in every part of a person's life? That is the underlying question here...
I just wish they ALL could be honest
without worrying about offending SOMEONE. It's ridiculous.
To be quite honest
even though I am against gay marriage due to my faith, I understand the fact that not everyone goes by the rules of God. Although it is unfortunate given the eternal consequences.
However, I feel that opening the door for gay marriage does in the end open the door for ANY marriage. The argument will still be "if traditional marriage and gay marriage are okay, why not polygamy?" I think that is the next step in the progression. Maybe I am wrong, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
Guys, I'm going to be honest...sm
I don't see what the major deal is about the wire tapping. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but as a child I've always been told that the government tapped phone lines warrantlessly (seeing as how they could probably get a warrant anyway).
So tell me in laymen's terms, what is the big problem with this for the average law abiding citizen?
Nope, just honest...get over it!
Thanks for being honest, Kaydie. :)
It is fine to support whoever you want to support, and it is fine to change your mind about who you support. It should be who YOU want and feel will do the best for the country, whoever that is. And to have the guts to say so. Good for you, Kaydie!
I just got back from Gettysburg, and read the words "so that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE shall not perish from this earth." It does not say government of the PARTY, by the PARTY, and for the PARTY, shall not perish from this earth. It is about us, as individuals, and I wish every individual this election cycle would vote their individual conscience, what they really feel is right for the country, not what the DNC or RNC tells them they should.
THAT is what I like about Sarah Palin. She has bucked her party, she has faced down good ol' boy politics in her own party and cleaned them out...and most of all...she says that elected officials should serve with a servant's heart. GOOD FOR HER!! What a breath of FRESH AIR and how much further could you get from Washington politics as usual than that?? GO MCCAIN-PALIN!!
Now that would be an honest Democrat...lol
nm
No, I will be honest, I waffled between he and two others at first...
as I researched it and the debates started, it came down to he and one other, and by the end of the primaries I was hoping he would be the candidate. Reader's Digest, it was not him alone at the start.
And I have no buyer's remorse. I still feel he is the guy for the job.
Honest answer
I'm sorry I can't answer your question with any first hand knowledge but IF the not so friendly countries support Obama and I don't know that they do......that's what the McCain campaign says...maybe it's because they are sick and tired of George W. Bush and his saber rattling. Can't wait to get some of those Indian mangoes he traded nuclear technology for.
Well, to be honest poster really has no
Always wants facts but when you give them, all you get is a bunch of junk back!
Argument would be if they had something substantial to say in the first place.
And you think republicans are all honest?
Oops - yes I am one in the same - just want to be honest
I used grim reaper above cos that's what I thought of when I read the article I posted. Guess I should have put Grim Reaper/Just me as my name so there wouldn't have been any confusion.
At least be honest about your source
"...those who have contacts on Capitol Hill..."
Your post is taken virtually verbatim from a blog comment at freerepublic.com, from an email from Roy Beck, not from "those who have contacts on Capitol Hill."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2173288/posts
Do you even know what E-Verify is and what it entails?
And I resent your implication that if I disagree with you, I'm not loyal to my country and don't "care anything about this country or [our] jobs."
So, you weren't exactly being honest.
If your husband is sitting at home buying and selling stocks for your own portfolio, he does not "work" in stocks/trading. I am not assuming anything, I am just going by what you say, which apparently is not true.
It seems that you are the one who is assuming much more about what I am thinking than I have actually said. I thin it's time you visit the "real world."
to be honest, I liked a lot of his answers -
I do not want all the illegals here - they should be sent home, but if it is going to be as expensive as they say, then the plan Obama put forth of fining them for being here illegally and making them then go back to the process of trying to be come legal is a good one. They are not going to send them home whoever is President, so why not fine them? His plan is as good as any I have seen. When he is talking about helping, my thoughts are that he is talking about the legal immigrants.
If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition..
as you are in postings to those who agree with you, and post in a civil manner the same way you post to Lurker...i.e., you state above (I know we TRY to take care of our poor)...but you certainly did not say that to me. You made it sound like we do nothing to take care of our poor. I personally think it should the be responsibility of individual Americans through private donations to take care of our poor, not the responsibility of the government through taxation. The reason that does not work is that while many pay lip service to the poor, they are not willing unless forced to do just that. And that happens on both sides of the aisle. It is not a political party thing. It is a human nature thing. In a perfect world, if you could trust exactly what people say is what they would do, then the Democrats in this country alone could take care of the poor through personal donations. I do not mean they should do it alone...I am trying to make a point here. It should not be necessary to tax people in order to take care of the less fortunate. We should also not put in place, in my opinion, a welfare system that keeps people impoverished and beholden to the government for everything. I believe every program ought to have a job and responsibility attached to it...in other words, no freebies. If there is no incentive to better yourself, why should you? That is in full obvious view to anyone in this country who cares to actually go visit the poor neighborhoods and actually talk to those involved. If you want some real enlightenment, you should work in the welfare offices for awhile. You would get a much better picture of the real story out there.
I do not say this to be hateful, but I think it would behoove you to, along with reading your books and doing your research, that you try to talk to someone other than me, because obviously you think I am a demon from the nether world, but perhaps someone without a political agenda who has worked for years in welfare (as I have) and get a real picture of how it works. To use your words, it is a great disservice to people to keep them in poverty through programs instead of trying to help them to a better life off a check. The problem is Teddy...there are thousands if not millions who prefer the life on the check. And that is no one's fault but yours and mine and everyone else's who has not sought to really help them...to provide the checks and balances you described.
Thanks for being honest, I completely agree
It was totally political and this issue is a HUGE example of what happens in politics. Republicans wanted children to suffer and Democrats wanted to give goverment assistance to rich people. I was so shocked when I actually looked at the proposal and thought: what are these people talking about? I'm glad we were able to work together and cut through the bull! :) That's what it should be about.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
Honest? I can't read this post.
Too windy, not enough time. I got as far as hippocracy, not true. Just waiting for our day in court that's all. Quite frankly, their crimes, if given the chance to be brought to light, and hopefully proven, will be far worse than anything Clinton did.
We don't need a hero. Waiting for the savior on the white horse? Doesn't exist. WE are the heroes.
So much for honest no bashing answers....LOL
nm
A very honest and realistic statement. sm
Oh my! My father-in-law, god rest his soul, was a wonderful but misguided man until I came along. LOL!. He routinely used the N word in conversation, but it was that only thing he had ever known. BAM! Do not use that word in front of your grandchildren! NEVER! He heard me, respected me, and I respected him. He was not a bigot and was just repeating what he had heard all his life.
How did we get from O gave an honest answer
to this incoherent whatever it is?
Honest? HA!. Obama cant even appont someone
nm
That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming
My words were “DH works in stocks/trading”. Which he does. Not everyone who works in stocks/trading goes into an office in Wall Street or a stockbrokers office. There are many people behind the scenes that research companies, and other jobs dealing with the markets, trading, buying, selling, foreign currencies, etc. Many of them write articles for the companies who have clientele with big $$$ to be trading and selling. Many of them attend meetings, sit in on conference calls, etc. Also, many people when dealing with portfolios whether they are your own or various clients know what is going on in the world of the markets/finance. I never said he buys or sells “just for ourselves” and I never once said he went into an office or even eluded to the fact that he went into an office, so there you go again “assuming”. I didn’t divulge any information about his clients or anything, and I never said what he did except that he works in stocks/trading, which he does. By the way… there are many people out there who buy/sell stocks and currencies for themselves and makes or loses $$$ a day. Tell them they “don’t work” in trading. Your too busy wanting to defend yourself and make excuses and you’re doing a poor job at it. Next time maybe you should read a post slowly before assuming anything.
One thing I do know is there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and if the markets go up or down it is not just because of who is the president. But you only like to point that out when the market goes up. You praise the enlightened one when the markets go up and claim he has now walked on water and the stock market has gone up just because of him and he along, and yet you remain as silent as the wind when the markets go down. Can’t have it both ways.
You do not speak for anyone here. There was nothing wrong with her posts. They were honest.nm
12
The volunteers are crucial for honest counts sm.
By throwing them out, there were no witnesses. I read they were also harrassed and intimidated by the lawyers in the Hillary camp. Hillary had a 7% swing in the vote only in precincts using Diebold electronic voting machines, and not anywhere using hand counts. Diebold is very hackable. Perhaps, Obama should not have conceded so quickly. There are people keeping very detailed data on this as they put the information up I will post it here. One is Bev Harris. Vote fraud has been confirmed from last night in Sutton, NH.
you've got to be kidding -democrats honest.
What have you been smoking. I can't remember the last time Barack O'flipflop said an honest comment. One thing you got right was we need change and that is what we will get with McCain and Sarah Palin. The women who fought "the boys" and won. The woman who balanced her budget, cut back unnecessary spending, among other good things for her state. Is she perfect? No, nobody's perfect. Including Barack O'brother. Sure Barack will fix the economy, however that's not the kind of fix I want. I would prefer not to have higher taxes, more government waste, government control, government sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Socialist programs, socialist health care. Where in the world do you think he's going to get all the money to keep running the "fluffy bunny programs". Us. Sorry, I am not ready to keep funding programs that do not benefit America. Maybe you can afford to but I'm having a hard time just keeping afloat here. Democrats more honest than republicans??? Pulllleeease. Get a grip on reality. The reason we hear about McCain's POW story is because it shows he has integrity. He will stand up and fight for American's. He could have been released but he stayed knowing what would happen to him. That's what I call integrity, honor, and heroism. Nobody knows Barack O'No's intentions. What I don't trust is he's been running his campaign on the point that he's going to bring the troops home. Now he's saying they will stay there another five years, AND he's in favor of the draft. So, yes if your in favor of change vote for Mr. O. He seems to be changing his mind all the time.
Chele is not hateful or heartless, but honest.
nm
This works great when the "rich" are honest.
how many rich "truly" earned their money. I mean truly worked hard and not had it handed down from generation to generation only to become "above" the working class. In this day, we might as well say there is no middle class. We are all headed in a downward spiral if something is not done to regulate the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer which includes the middle class now coming close to being poor; only a paycheck away from a foreclosure. Sad affairs...
Then Obama should be honest and call it welfare.
nm
CRIPES!! The pubs can't even nominate an honest VP!!!!!
Talk about taking it to the top.............
|
