Bush to veto children’s health insurance expansion.
By on Jul 15th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Bush to veto children’s health insurance expansion.
“The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program,” which is set to expire Sept. 30. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan plan “would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
hey, its all about the profits…. if you havent seen SICKO yet…. GO & TAKE AS MANY WITH YOU AS POSSIBLE!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:11 amWell, I’ll let the NYT tell me how to feel!!!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:12 am‘Cause you know that they’ll give it to ya straight!!!
Another thrilling installment in “The Culture of Life”.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:13 amExcellent!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:16 amSomeone should post the truth in the article, though, the President already proposed an expansion of SCHIP…the Democrats decided not to pass it…..
July 15th, 2007 at 12:18 amCompassionate conservatism at its worst…shameless son of a b*tch.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:19 amPresident already proposed an expansion of SCHIP…the Democrats decided not to pass it…..
Lie. It was the GOP that scuttled SCHIP reform:
Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: “If Republicans don’t unify now” in support of “free-market reform to replace today’s fattening employer-based system,” the expansion of SCHIP could “prove the beginning of the end of today’s private model,” Journal columnist Strassel writes in an opinion piece. The expansion would “enact national health care one citizen at a time, slowly expanding the reach of existing government programs until they encompass the population,” according to Strassel. Democrats fund the program by “gut[ting] Medicare Advantage and similar free-market reforms” — a “craftier approach” to achieving the reforms proposed by HillaryCare in the 1990s, Strassel writes. “[B]ackroom talks” held this week “by health care innovators” established a Republican goal to create “a system that eliminates today’s corporate subsidy and gives the money to individuals, cutting costs and reducing the number of uninsured,” Strassel says. According to Strassel, after “10 years of tinkering, Republicans have laid the foundation for a bigger reform,” and “Republican leaders” are thought to be “climbing on board, with all concerned hoping to debut something big in coming weeks.” She writes, “The challenge then will be to get the rest of the party to overcome its nervelessness on health care” because the “brawl” over SCHIP “could well determine the future direction of U.S. health care” (Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 6/29).
July 15th, 2007 at 12:21 amso much for no child left behind…. lol even in healthcare….
July 15th, 2007 at 12:21 amBush only cares about zygotes.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:23 amAfter all, these would be ‘poor’ kids. And if they grow up, they’ll probably vote Dem. So screw em, right, trolls?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:24 amComment by Karim — July 15, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Someone might want to tell you that Bush has given more money to SCHIP than Mr. Clinton!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:25 amDubya is and has always been the beginning of the end of this great nation…the worst thing to ever happen to this country was the fascist take over by the GOP having the Supreme Court appoint a drunken AWOL faux cowboy from New England to the office of POUSA. We are really f*cked.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:25 amWe have to protect the children before they’re born so we can neglect them after they’re born.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:29 amI’m guessing that we have to pay for this neverending war somehow. We are going to be passing debt on to our children. It is to bad that those child will not be covered by health insurance.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:29 amanother 4million uninsured children…
why ever would he do this?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:29 am5. Here’s your Presidential expansion of SCHIP:
Bush has proposed to increase funds for SCHIP by $4.8 billion over five years. In addition, Bush has proposed to reduce federal funds for states that have expanded SCHIP eligibility to children in families with annual incomes more than 200% of the federal poverty level to refocus the program on low-income, uninsured children. At least 17 states would lose federal funds as a result of the proposal.
–”Medical News Today”
By contrast, the Senate plan would increase funding by over $30 billion over the next five years.
Bush is, as usual, despicable.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:30 amPOS could care less about poor children, at least after they are born.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:30 amWhat are we spending in Iraq? 12 billion a month, 400 million a day, A DAY. It is just so ugly, so disgusting that all this money is going into pockets of already very wealthy people while poor children literally starve to death or die of easily preventable diseases.
Lets abolish the military and start a medical service instead and export this to the world. How many militants would be blowing us up if we were giving dialysis to their grandma? Surely we would be greeted with roses if we arrived to cure their children and their sick. But no, we export death, under the name of God, just as the awful mf’rs with rags on their heads do.
Were I running things thats what I would do; export medical care, export care, human being care, in all of it’s forms.
Guess the simple lessons of the bible never stuck with gw*ushit. My sincere hope is that there is a creator who gwdub will stand before one day to give account of his worthless life.
Justice is a nice thought.
President Clinton only spent $2.8b on SCHIP in 2000….why does he hate our Children?
Enrollment in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) grew 70 percent in fiscal year 2000, from 1.9 million to 3.3 million. Total SCHIP spending increased to $2.8 billion in 2000, up from $1.8 billion in 1999.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:30 amAt least 17 states would lose federal funds as a result of the proposal.
And 33 states would gain them. What’s the problem?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:32 amAfter all, these would be ‘poor’ kids. And if they grow up, they’ll probably vote Dem. So screw em, right, trolls?
Comment by RUCerious — July 15, 2007 @ 12:24 am
my first thought was, “recruits”… but then realized that they would have to LIVE that long…
July 15th, 2007 at 12:32 amstill, can’t deny it’s another part of the plan to keep folks down…
…
How WILL we pass this debt on to these children if they are dead because they didn’t receive proper healthcare?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:32 amSomeone might want to tell you that Bush has given more money to SCHIP than Mr. Clinton!
Comment by m12
Nice strawman argument. What’s the ‘m’ part stand for, my guess is ‘my IQ is’, has to be for you to continually defend this fascist criminal come hell or high water.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:33 amthink anyone will blame clinton? oop! too late….
July 15th, 2007 at 12:33 amPerhaps the fact that it was enacted in 1997 would have something to do with Clinton having less “given” then Bush. Don’t let the facts bite you in the ass, troll.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:34 amWell, I’ll let the NYT tell me how to feel!!!
‘Cause you know that they’ll give it to ya straight!!!
Comment by Mr. President
True, like all those lies that came from Judith Miller, that they printed several years ago. LOL!!!
You are such a COMPLETE MORON.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:34 am“Enrollment in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) grew 70 percent in fiscal year 2000, from 1.9 million to 3.3 million. Total SCHIP spending increased to $2.8 billion in 2000, up from $1.8 billion in 1999.
At least 17 states would lose federal funds as a result of the proposal.
And 33 states would gain them. What’s the problem?”
Comment by m12
Yep, definitely has to stand for ‘my IQ is’.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:35 amPresident Clinton only spent $2.8b on SCHIP in 2000….why does he hate our Children?
Enrollment in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) grew 70 percent in fiscal year 2000, from 1.9 million to 3.3 million. Total SCHIP spending increased to $2.8 billion in 2000, up from $1.8 billion in 1999.
Comment by m12
Does that include the 60% increase in health care costs since then?
LOL!!!
IDIOT.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:36 amPerhaps the fact that it was enacted in 1997 would have something to do with Clinton having less “given†then Bush. Don’t let the facts bite you in the ass, troll.
Compare single year totals if you wish. Federal spending of SCHIP in 2007. Bush is spending $5b a year, and proposing $6b, double Clinton’s $2.8b in 2000, and triple Clinton’s $1.8b in 1999!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am18. Enrollment in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) grew 70 percent in fiscal year 2000, from 1.9 million to 3.3 million. Total SCHIP spending increased to $2.8 billion in 2000, up from $1.8 billion in 1999.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am* * *
That’s a FISCAL year, dimwit: it began in Oct. 1999, when Clinton was still President.
President Clinton only spent $2.8b on SCHIP in 2000
That’s a profoundly dishonest argument. SCHIP was enacted in 1997. Zero to $2.8B in two years isn’t bad, ya whiny dirtbag.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:37 amComment by m12
The bipartisan plan, that Bush plans to veto, would give health insurance to 4.1 million kids that will now be denied coverage. What part of that is confusing ur12?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:39 amComment by bogtrotters — July 15, 2007 @ 12:37 am
So why did Mr. Clinton hate our children? You didn’t see him and these ridiculous $75b totals!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:40 amSo why did Mr. Clinton hate our children?
That’s just 6th-grade-level crap. Grow up.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:42 amThat’s a profoundly dishonest argument. SCHIP was enacted in 1997. Zero to $2.8B in two years isn’t bad, ya whiny dirtbag.
3 years, actually..and $2.8b to $6b in 7 years isn’t bad either!
July 15th, 2007 at 12:44 ami think its time to veto bush’s sorry ass to jail.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:45 amG’night, m12. Go cruise some porn sites, bub.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:45 amthis is about as bad as corruption gets………..
now listen… finance childrens health insurance with a tobacco tax?
wasn’t it Boehner passing out tobacco checks to the totally bought
out and corrupted faithfully caressed ultimately wisdom public servants?
what should really happen is all the TOTALLY corrupt food industry and
pharma k street swindlers and politically leeches should emphasise
good healthy unprocessed foods instead of sustaining disease management totally corrupted healthcare.
then the need for the for the disease management totally corrupted
healthcare economy would be significantly reduced and the need for
pharma… but that would NEVER happen
real healthy healthcare, it would never happen with all these politically
leeches, political hoodlums, all the smoozing and bribing and swindling
ALL FRIGGIN CORRUPTED DUDE
ps: i’m 48 and have no disease because that 90% processed foods early
on i learned how to eat real, whole, most unrefined foods and guess what,
those genetic weakness symptoms went away, that was 25 years ago
THERE IS SO MUCH POLITICAL SWINDLING, SMOOZING, FAST SMOOTH SLICK
POLITICIZING
IT’S ENOUGH TO MAKE SOCIETY PUKE, BUT IT’S ALL RIGGED DUDE RIGGED
July 15th, 2007 at 12:47 amI’ll be calling on Mark Foley, Karl Rove, Jeff Gannon, GHW Bush, and many of my Catholic Priest friends, for the “No Child’s Behind Left Alone” program.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:50 amBush was threatening to veto SCHIP completely until GOP Senators Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT) and Roberts (KS) said in a July 11 letter to Bush that the issue that his objection — the use of SCHIP to cover adults — is partly his fault and urged a compromise with Dems.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002549957.html
July 15th, 2007 at 12:51 amThis evil man has the audacity to claim to be a Christian. Bush serves Mammon and not God. Conservatives have no morals.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:56 amAfter Bush vetoes it, Congress should try to override the veto. In the case of Republicans who vote against the override, this should be used against them in the next election.
Suggested soud bite:
Why does Congressman (or Senator) ___________ not care about Americas’ Children?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:58 amIf the Dims in Washington want to really reform healthcare, tell them to follow Bush’s home state!
Oh, on another note, Texas is thriving thanks to tort reform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 07/ 09/ AR2007070901282.html
Influx of Doctors Overwhelms Texas Board
AUSTIN — An influx of doctors lured to Texas by new limits on malpractice lawsuits has overwhelmed the state board that screens candidates for medical licenses, creating a backlog that forces many applicants to wait months before they can start seeing patients.
Several doctors who moved to Texas from other states said they were drawn by lower malpractice insurance rates.
The average malpractice insurance premiums in Texas have fallen by 21.3 percent since 2003, when lawmakers and voters implemented a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in malpractice cases, according to Jon Opelt, who leads a group of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers that fought for the changes.
The changes are “a big factor why Texas has become a popular state to practice in,” said Dr. Punit Chadha, an oncologist who moved from Chicago to Austin last year. He said his malpractice insurance premium is one-fourth of what it would have been in Chicago.
Dr. Kevin H. Brown, an obstetrician who opened a Round Rock practice with his wife in May, said they paid $130,000 a year for their malpractice insurance in Georgia. Now, they pay a combined annual premium of $82,000 a year.
“It was a $24,000 raise for each of us before we even got started,” Brown said.
Texas is on the path to more competition and cheaper healthcare!
July 15th, 2007 at 1:05 amComment by CaptainVideo — July 15, 2007 @ 12:58 am
That’s “hate,” as in:
Why does Bill Clinton hate America’s children?
July 15th, 2007 at 1:06 am#41…
all these faithfully caressed, god appointed, ultimate wisdom so called
public servants don’t care about you or me AT ALL
they are about
i scratch YOU and you scratch ME
i’ll smooze with YOU and you’ll smooze WITH ME
a nice fat stuffed to the pork juicy government contract for a bribe
trusty telephone to solicit bribes and wining/dinning on k street
and $28,000 plates
and LOTS of pork
and lots of swindling, arm twisting, smoozing, cruising and scratching
and lets don’t forget the elf’s pot yours and mine, always raise the
debt ceiling and leave another empty IOU
CORRUPTION DUDE LITERALLY A BUNCH OF POLITICAL HOODLUMS
AND SWINDLERS DUDE
July 15th, 2007 at 1:06 amm12’s link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070901282.html
July 15th, 2007 at 1:07 am“Lets forgive the Nazi war criminals” (George Bush, New York Times, April, 14, 1990)
July 15th, 2007 at 1:09 amThank you, Mr. President, hopefully when Mr. Romney takes office he can use his business smarts to solve this problem for the other 49 states in the nation before all their doctors move to Texas!
July 15th, 2007 at 1:11 amWHAT I’M SAYING DUDE
FAITHFULLY CARESSED GOD APPOINTED ROCK SOLID INTEGRITY
PUBLIC SWINDLERS =
SWINDLERS
I’LL SCRATCH YOU
&
YOU GET TO SCRATCH ME
I’LL SMOOZE WITH YOU
&
YOU’LL SMOOZE WITH ME
POLITICALLY CONTRIBUTIONS = BRIBES
K STREET = SWINDLERS
WHEELIN/DEALIN
POLITICAL LEECHES
YACHTS, SCOTLAND, LAND DEALS, ROLLS ROYCE
HOODLUMS I SAY
POLITICAL SWINDLERS DUDE SWINDLERS
LIKE CRIMINALS DUDE POLITICAL SWINDLERS AND CRIMINALS
July 15th, 2007 at 1:17 amNOW LETS TRY TO CORRECT THIS
LENTIL BURGERS, REAL RAW VEGETABLE JUICE, RAW VEGETABLES, REAL
WHOLE UNPROCESSED FOODS =
REAL HEALTH CARE
CORRUPT HEALTH CARE =
TOBACCO TAX TO FINANCE HEALTH CARE
ALL FRIGGIN CORRUPTED
POLITICAL SWINDLERS/HOODLUMS DUDE
FOR LOTS OF PORK AND K STREET FROM PHARMA AND INSURANCE INDUSTRY
AND CRONYISM AND SWINDLERS
ALL FRIGGIN DISEASE MANAGEMENT HEALTHCARE
THERE AIN’T NO MONEY IN A REAL HEALTHCARE ECONOMY COMPARED TO
PRODUCING DISEASE MANAGEMENT HEALTHCARE
ALL FRIGGIN CORRUPTED
July 15th, 2007 at 1:22 ambushie truly is sicko.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:24 amREAL HEALTHCARE
WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCE
COST OF MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDREN
THEY DON’T WANT THAT…..
THEY WANT TO PRODUCE AND WANT GROWTH FOR DISEASE MANAGEMENT
HEALTHCARE… LIKE PROFITS
AND FINANCE IT WITH A TOBACCO TAX INCREASE
THAT’S ABOUT HOW MUCH INTEGRITY EACH ONE OF THOSE 500 BIRDS AT
$175,000 A YEAR
PROVIDE FOR SERVICE
ALL FRIGGIN CORRUPTED
LITERALLY A BUNCH OF POLITICAL SWINDLERS
GUARANTEED OUT OF THAT 50 CENTS, 99% WOULD BE WASTED IN CORRUPTION, IT WOULD NEVER BE UTILIZED AS INTENDED
LOOK AT THE SWINDLING STATES WITH THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
MONEY 10 YEARS AGO
BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS SWINDLED AWAY
ALL FRIGGIN CORRUPTED DUDE
JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS
ROCK SOLID INTEGRITY + ROCK SOLID TRUTH DUDE :)
July 15th, 2007 at 1:31 amBush our Dictator knows best. It’s more important that the taxpayers money go to big business and Iraq then to American children. Look if you can’t afford health care then it’s your problem. All the important kids have health care as they use taxpayers money for it. The rest of Americans should just be grateful their allowed to live in the US and they will be told that the taxes will go up so the rich can get more.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:37 amIt’s about time Bush cuts some spending.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:42 amHe could start with Cheney’s office, seeing as he’s not a part of the Eezekutive branch
July 15th, 2007 at 1:46 amLike usual, the Republicans prefer death and destruction over doing something that actually helps people.
Republicans = pro-death
July 15th, 2007 at 1:56 amThe immature little boy troll Mr. President spends so much time posting on this blog that it’s obvious he has no life in the real world. Poor hate-filled boy Mr. President.
So, Mr. President, what’s it like being a loner without friends?
July 15th, 2007 at 2:01 amUniversal Health Care, here we come!
Should be any minute now..
This is the issue they pick to pull back government spending? Children’s health insurance? Really?
Poor kids. Or maybe not poor enough.
Maybe they should all parish at their own hand and therby decrease the surplus population. Hey Marley?
July 15th, 2007 at 2:11 amHow compassionate. Has he cut the food stamps to military families as well?
July 15th, 2007 at 2:23 amShrub, go f@ck yourself, even though you’d probably enjoy it, prick.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:32 amYeah, makes complete sense to me! Not like we can afford to cover uninsured kids here in this great nation of ours when all our money is going for far more important things like Iraq. Anyway, if the parents of those kids just picked up another job or two instead of lying around all day watching tv and drinking beer, they could easily afford health insurance for their kids.
Why, for God’s sake, should we part with our hard-earned money to help those lazy bastards? If they don’t want to work another job, then too bad. It’s not the end of the f*cking world if they don’t get their precious health insurance.
In my estimation, compassion is way over-rated. It’s a tough world out there and only the strong survive. Far fewer mouths to feed if some of them die off.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:47 amIt makes no sense to provide health insurance to children. They will be too busy working two jobs to pay back the Iraq war debt to get sick.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:51 amSpending 10% less in Iraq would pay for the largest proposed increase.
Bush’s proposed increase doesn’t make it two weeks in Iraq, and its over five years.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:05 amJust sent:
Dear Mrs. Speaker Pelosi,
We often say Bush should admit mistakes he has made, reconsider, and change course. It would be exactly hypocritical of us not to apply the same standard of behavior to ourselves.
Try as I might, I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt on the reasoning as to why you made the illegal and absurd maneuver of ‘taking impeachment off the table’. It was an absolutely heinous thing to do. It is difficult for me to express to you in civilized terms how gutted I feel in your doing so. I feel robbed, stripped of power as an American citizen, castrated and muzzled. It is like betrayal from those who are supposed to by on your side. Impeachment is a tool that belongs to the American people, not to you, and you cannot, and should not try, to take it away from us. Every system must have a release, a reset mechanism, and impeachment is an essential one in our government.
After the whole Bill Clinton debacle, you may be afraid of the word and the action of impeachment, but I am not. The Clinton episode may have left you and others with a lingering feeling of adversity toward impeachment. But that is an emotional mistake and folly. Maybe Bill deserved to be impeached. Maybe he did not. The republicans made the decision on that one. But whatever decision republicans have made in the past, in no way shape or form, exempts you from your duties as a United States Congresswoman, Speaker of the House, member of a body of government whose duty it is to check the power of the executive branch. Put another way, no you don’t have anything better to do. This is at least as critical as any of the other funtastic legislation you may be considering, it cuts to the heart, soul and core of the way life in this country will proceed.
Whatever political calculus was involved in your single handedly castrating the American people in ‘taking impeachment off the table’, be it to act above the fray, be the bigger person (how did that work out for John Kerry?), be the adult, to not be distracted with retribution, etc. etc.– whatever the reasoning that brought you to that action, I am telling you now from the bottom of my heart, it is wrong at this time. It is very very wrong at this time. We need strength. We need competence. The two are inextricably intertwined. You cannot be competent without strength. And you cannot be strong without competence. Do not make the mistake of thinking that your great brilliance and competence can compensate for a lack in strength. “Taking impeachment off the table’ (it is such a rediculous concept, I cannot bring myself to state it without putting it in quotes, it makes my spine shiver- yes, this Liberal has a spine) made our position so weak, tactically and in perception, that I am furious about it. Simply furious.
By the time you read this letter, and I really hope you do read this letter, you will have undoubtedly seen the Bill Moyers special on impeachment. But if you haven’t, or if you haven’t watched it enough times to get the message clearly, hear it is. You make me feel like an idiot and a sucker for having passionately supported the democrats. Please, be what the Rethuglicans cannot. Be decent enough to recognize an err of your own, reconsider, and correct it.
TOUGH TALK ON IMPEACHMENT
In Grave Sincerity,
______________
By the way: Good work on the minimum wage bill.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:06 amWell done, Joey! You can’t say you didn’t give it your best shot!
July 15th, 2007 at 3:46 amI don’t like this bill and hope it does get pass into law. For one segment of the US population to be singled out to support another is not right. If you want to tax people to support a program for the poor, then tax everyone, not just the smoking population of the nation…that’s discrimination in my book.
If this country wants to tax legal drugs, then lets tax all of them, not just the flavor and favorite target of the moment. Tax beer. Beer also causes health problems, crime and mental illness. More people in the US drink beer than smoke tobacco. Think of the revenue that can be generated !! A $1 a pack and a $1 a can! Let’s all chip in, shall we?
July 15th, 2007 at 5:03 amJoey, I don’t post often, but this time I can’t keep it inside.
It is unfair and damaging to the Democratic Party that you people keep screaming to Pelosi about impeachment.
We DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES.
Get it? Without the votes, impeachment is nothing but an exercise in futility. It would make us look partisan, politically inept and just damn STUPID to start the process when we don’t have the votes to convict.
Furthermore, since there would be no conviction, it would seal the executive’s claim that everything they’ve done is legal and by-the-book. Do you really want that? They’d get away with it scott-free and that would set a precedent we don’t want to think about!
If you impeach GWB, failure is simply not an option.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:55 amAlso, impeachment is probably the best way to drive Bush’s approval ratings up.
The media would tell how the big bad Dems were ganging up on the President, as he struggles alone against the threat of Islamofascism, etc., etc.
And if the impeachment failed, the Republicans would crow about forever. It would give them quite a boost in future elections.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:37 amInsurance schmensurance. Our kids don’t need no stinkin health insurance till their old enough to mangle them in Iraq. And even then with our second to none, well, er ah 37th to 36 of them rated health care, why we can just zap a new leg or arm on the poor blighters and ship em right back to old Bagdaddy. See, hehehe, problem solved. Now, where’s that glass of mine wrapped in the paper bag? Hehehe, I just luv bein Prezzy.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:50 amIMPORTANT!!!
Please watch this discussion with Bill Moyers on the necessity of impeaching Dick Cheney and George Bush. Watch it, and then pass it on to your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, your churches and anyone else that you can think of.
To save our nation, we must rid ourselves of the two men who would be king.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
July 15th, 2007 at 8:43 amM12,
Yup you’re right, it’s always Clinton’s fault! Go read this report :
cbpp.org/11-21-02schip.htm
Seems the program , had “Surplus Funds” in from ‘98 – ‘02, cause most States hadn’t complied with the Fed. Regulations.
So read this carefully, and then go whine to Hannity; When you have funds that haven’t been spent, and you add more money to the program, what difference does the amount of money added to the fund make? If Clinton added 1 dollar, he was increasing the fund!
Bush wants a lower amount, cause he knows he’s bankrupted the Country, and doesn’t have money to put in it!
joeysocal,
July 15th, 2007 at 8:50 amWhen you build a house, do you start on the roof first, didn’t think so? Get a grip, the house is being built,the right from the basement up,not your way from the roof on down!
When your building your case for impeachment, you don’t start impeaching first, and then go after what you need to impeach with!
Your letter was just hot air from a airhead, you didn’t impress anyone! Folks like you are a dime a dozen,always wanting instant gratification!
Why does Bush hate our children so much???
July 15th, 2007 at 9:03 amThe war contractors must be paid.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:16 amBush says raising cigarette taxes isn’t the answer and I agree.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:28 amI am vehemently opposed to sin taxes.
Free Public Education is widely accepted because America sees the danger of Ignorant children. So why can’t we see the danger of sick children. While I support the CHIPS program, I don’t agree that it should be Income Based. This just pits the middle class against the working poor. Any American child should be guaranteed FREE Universal Health Care. Middle class & wealthy taxpaying parents would be getting something for their tax dollars.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:29 amWe’re heading for a health care Timebomb with a generation of overweight pop drinking children with poor healthcare.
Why Bush and Cheney should be stood up to, via Impeachment, regardless of the ‘votes’:
“On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don’t give away the tools. They don’t give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.”
—Bruce Fein, Interview with Bill Moyers
July 15th, 2007 at 9:39 amJoeySoCal is right. By making that sweeping statement, Speaker Pelosi single-handedly told Bush, in effect: ‘No matter what crimes you commit, no matter how incompetent your administration is, you will never be threatened by the spector of impeachment.’ To those who argue that the votes are not there, I say “NOT YET!” To those who argue that Americans were left with a distate for impeachment after the Clinton mess, I say, “No wonder, it was a bullshit partisan move. It was a misuse of the Constitution.” The upper eschelon of this administration have forsworn their oaths of office, and Speaker Pelosi has effectively told them that there will be no redress. She, too, has forsworn her oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. She has left us citizens powerless and defenseless against this administration.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:50 amJOHN NICHOLS: The hearings are important. There’s no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, “You must act upon this.” Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it’s time. We need some accountability.
BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn’t agree.
JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up. It is not enough–
July 15th, 2007 at 9:55 amBILL MOYERS: You’re– does this process have to go all the way to the end? Do Bush and Cheney have to be impeached before it serves the public?
JOHN NICHOLS: I think that what Bush and Cheney have done makes a very good case that the public and the future would be well served if it did go all the way to the end. But there is absolutely a good that comes of this if the process begins, if we take it seriously. And the founders would have told you that, — that impeachment is a dialogue. It is a discourse. And it is an educational process. If Congress were to get serious about the impeachment discussions, to hold the hearings, to begin that dialogue, they would begin to educate the American people and perhaps themselves about the system of checks and balances, about the powers of the presidency, about, you know, what we can expect and what we should expect of our government.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:58 amWell said, Jane. I agree with JoeySoCal, as well.
Saying “we don’t have the votes” is as wrong-headed as taking impeachment off the table.
No, strictly speaking, we do not have the votes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t proceed in spite of that. During the impeachment process, there will be some Republican congress members who will see the writing on the wall — whether they finally see that impeachmet is the right path, or simply that they want to get re-elected.
We may have the votes afterall.
BTW, which of these options would you rather have?
1. Dems launch impeachment proceedings and give it their all, and fail.
OR
2. Dems do nothing, and give the Repubs the talking point of “we wanted to get rid of Bush, but the Dems wouldn’t even impeach the worst president ever. We’d have done it, but we weren’t the majority.”
July 15th, 2007 at 10:00 amWhy don’t we have the votes?
How were the Republicans capable of obtaining the votes on Clinton? Like Fein said in the interview, we don’t have someone with the strength of conviction, with passion, to persuade the others to follow for the good of the nation.
If there were a passonate leader such as this to take up the call, they would not fail.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:05 amBRUCE FEIN: I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don’t have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, “Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don’t have secret government. That’s what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That’s not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know ’cause it’s our duty to decide whether what you’re doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you’re held in contempt right now.” And that’s– and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? “Well, would you please answer?” Well, are you sure? When– could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it’s just staggering.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:08 amJOHN NICHOLS: But also we would have hit that educational moment, that rare moment where a president of the United States has been forced to– go before the American people and say, “Oh, yeah, I just remembered, you’re the boss. You are the bosses. Not me. And that I am not a king.”
Again, this is why raising impeachment at this point, it’s a very late point, is so important. Because we are defining what the presidency will be in the future today because we do know the high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush and Dick Cheney. They have been well illustrated even by a– rather lax media. They have been discussed in Congress
If we know these things and we do not hold them to account, then we are saying, as a people and as a Congress, we are saying that we can find out that you have violated the rule of law. We can find out that you have disregarded the Constitution. You– we can find out that you’ve done harm to the republic. But there will still be no penalty for that. If that’s the standard that we’ve set, it will hold. It will not be erased in the future.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:14 amIt is important to note, triple digit, that Fein is a resident Fellow at AEI. A conservative.
What I found interesting was how easily they dismissed the issue that Impeachment would be bad for the morale of the country.
It’s been the same thing I have been saying for two years; that the country is sick now. We are divided along party lines; deliberately so. And the only way to save the system is to restore it to the way it was designed to work; with fully functioning system of checks and balances. We are not used to an Imperial Presidency and it’s very exsistance causes hostility and disent on both sides of the line.
Impeachment wont destroy this country; it will save it.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:14 amWell, this is the problem. Our leaders treat us as children. They think that we cannot handle a serious dialogue about the future of our republic, about what it will be and how it will operate. And so, you know, to an extent, we begin to act like children. We, you know, follow other interests. We decide to be entertained rather than to be citizens.
Well, you know, and Bruce makes frequent references to the fall of the Roman Empire. You know, that’s the point at where the fall comes. It doesn’t come because of a bad leader. It doesn’t come because of a dysfunctional Congress. It comes when the people accept that– role of the child or of the subject and are no longer citizens. And so I think this moment becomes so very, very important because we know the high crimes and misdemeanors.
–John Nichols
And THAT is why impeachment is not only critical, but manditory at this point. Either we fix the problem now, or we live with it.
IMPEACH!
July 15th, 2007 at 10:17 amIt is important to note, triple digit, that Fein is a resident Fellow at AEI. A conservative.
Yes it is – thanks for adding that. He was the one who wrote the actual Articles of Impeachment against Clinton as well.
What I found interesting was how easily they dismissed the issue that Impeachment would be bad for the morale of the country.
Yeah, like this current morale is so high…
It’s been the same thing I have been saying for two years; that the country is sick now. We are divided along party lines; deliberately so. And the only way to save the system is to restore it to the way it was designed to work; with fully functioning system of checks and balances. We are not used to an Imperial Presidency and it’s very exsistance causes hostility and disent on both sides of the line.
Most definitely. Al Gore says the same thing in his new book. It’s not a partisan problem, but an American problem.
Impeachment wont destroy this country; it will save it.
Comment by willyloman — July 15, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Well said.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:21 amImpeachment wont destroy this country; it will save it.
Comment by willyloman — July 15, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Yes. Time’s getting short….
July 15th, 2007 at 10:22 amYes. Time’s getting short….
Comment by Zooey
Oh yes. Once the proceedings starts, I fear they may stage an attack against a ship (USS Liberty) or an Embassy or worse; that ties somehow into Iran.
I know this; they are so close to this “New Middle East” they will never just walk away. Never.
Might explain why “the table” doesn’t have impeachment on it.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:27 amThanks, Zoo!
Good points, Triple Digit IQ and willyloman, and very eloquently put.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:30 amBush is one evil SOB.He uses children as a pawn for scare tactics about terrorists “They’re going to come and kill your children”, then refuses to even protect their health coverage. History will judge him alright, even harsher then he’s being judged now. Worst president ever!
July 15th, 2007 at 10:32 amComment by Barry
Bush has literally chosen the financial interests of health insurance companies over the needs of 4.1 million children. And he justifies it by saying he doesn’t want to raise a tax on cigarrettes?
Is there anything more disgusting than that?
Good point Barry
July 15th, 2007 at 10:35 amMight explain why “the table†doesn’t have impeachment on it.
Comment by willyloman
Quite possibly, willy. But we should move still forward. These criminals cannot be allowed to hold us hostage anymore.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:36 amwhat a dick!
July 15th, 2007 at 10:37 amQuite possibly, willy. But we should move still forward. These criminals cannot be allowed to hold us hostage anymore.
Comment by Zooey
Absolutely. I wonder if the charge of Treason would remove their ability to command troops immediately.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:40 amLurker Dude
From the political viewpoint impeachment is a good idea:
The time for being cowardice is over. Realise that if after all that has happened the Republicans win in 2008 the Democrats are dead as a party and they will never rise again.
Currently the Democrats are going to lose. The Democrats did not win in 2006. The Republicans lost on a record of corruption, absanteeism, graft and stupidity. The Republicans lost in 2006 because ulitmately the mass majority of Americans are just liberal enough to recognise that you get rid of your worthless employees – and that your government official is still your employee.
The trouble is that the Democrats and the Republicans have sold America on there only being two real parties to vote for. Amongst the less passionate of America’s population, those who turned out in 2006 because they were sick to death of Republican corruption, amongst them it must be established that the Democrats and the Republicans are two different parties.
This means impeachment, because what sickened that majority most about the Republicans was the lack of oversight, and the precedent being set by the president.
If they do not see honest, enforcement of oversight, if they do not see impeachment back on the table, you lose in 2008 because they will mostly not vote, and you will lose your base to the smaller parties.
This is the lesson the Democrats did not learn in 2000. The Greens didn’t steal Democrat votes, liberals are free to vote for whoever they want and the Democrats took those liberals for granted and pissed away those votes while trying to look as conservative as the Republicans. You play to your base, then you go for the middle.
The Democrats need a solid demonstration that they will stand for the law, for the basic minimums upon which society agrees. It can look like a consequence of Bush claiming executive priveledge (A right which has not been tested and may well not exist) and blocking investigations into the Whitehouse, it can be seen as being retaliatory, but it must be seen.
Without impeachment on the table, looming large the Democrats will look just like the Republicans and that is the image which lost you the presidency and both houses of Congress before 2006.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:42 am1/20/09: The end of an error…
July 15th, 2007 at 10:44 amIt’s official. George Bush isn’t really stupid…he’s just evil.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:48 amThis is a simple one for them: the kids don’t vote so who cares?
And they will have no votes when the grow up either as we all continue doing the rovian shuffle.
We might want to pay attention to all the bombing in the gigantic mess over the last few months.The exit strategy may be stall until there is nothing left except the green area and the u.s. bases.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:49 amAt that point the only need is to guard the loot.
That’s doing it the vp’s way!
That’ll get both sides of his lip to move.
Man o man?????
The funding for this act is to be derived from adding a 61 cents per pack tax to cigarettes. Now, I don’t care how you feel about smoking but this is ludicrous and unfair. More and more people are quitting smoking, therefore revenues are going to decrease over time, who pays for the program then? Why should the government rely solely on smokers to fund their programs, why not tax drinkers? Or for that matter why tax anyone, just get the hell out of Iraq and use the money here in the USA for the benefit of all Americans.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:31 amWhat else would you expect from a male cheerleader, cocaine-sniffing, drunk-driving, always bailed-out-by-daddy, pampered, bribed, and manipulated, irresponsible, everyone-else-but-his-cronies-are-accountable, phoney who values stale frozen embryos over live people?
July 15th, 2007 at 11:34 amImpeaching Bush has to be off the table as long as the evil Dick Cheney is Vice President. As bad as Bush is, a President Cheney would be a lot worse. This would get us out of the frying pan and into the fire.
On the other hand, impeaching Cheney should be on the table.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am“On the other hand, impeaching Cheney should be on the table.”
Comment by CaptainVideo — July 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
AG Gonzales first (he’s easiest), Cheney second, then Bush.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pmAll Americans can and will relate to SICKO — we have all been affected in ways similar to Moore’s documentary portrays.
If we were to eliminate the middle-men– the profit-driven insurance companies who hire “experts” to determine how your doctor can practice medicine on you, and big pharma (why do they advertise their prescription drugs to the public in the first place?) and add up what we all pay for ever-increasing insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays for ever-decreasing insurance reimbursement than we think we are getting — we would have all the funds we need for health care for every American.
Eliminating the profiteers in the insurance who make their money on us when we are sick and vulnerable will be extremely difficult – no doubt – but until they are eliminated from the equation, I don’t see any improvement on the horizon.
SICKO, however, may provide impetus for a ground swell against the system.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:36 pm“After all, these would be ‘poor’ kids. And if they grow up, they’ll probably vote Dem. So screw em, right, trolls?
Comment by RUCerious”
No, if they grow up they will become cannon fodder. I am surprised that the Republics don’t want to take very good medical care of these poor kids. If they don’t make it to adulthood or make it in poor physical condition, where are they going to get their future recruits for whatever new war the Republics want to get us into.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmI think that I am a socialist at heart. I believe that any industry that affects our ability to live our lives in peace and prosperity should be nationalized. This would mean all utilities we cannot live without and, of course, health care. We are the only industrialized nation that thinks health care is a privilege and not a right.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pmFrom a cynical point of view, the wealthy will always be able to provide adequate health care for their children — the middle class and the poor will never be able to do so. Ergo, the middle class and poor will diminish in numbers while the elite will dominate.
Every plan and policy and program promoted by Bush&Co can and should be viewed as to how this will affect the middle class and who will benefit today and tomorrow.
There is a grand plan carefully being laid in place. And when we finally awaken to it, it will be too late to reverse.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pmLove the fetus and profits of the HMOs but hate the children…that is the Republic way…sorry, no good for anything, thugs of a crime family…the GOP.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pmI don’t know if this is appropriate, and I hope it isn’t taken the wrong way by Tired of Fighting….
but since his very personal posting I thought it would be respectful to visit his fallen friends memorial.
I found it on the net, and feel that if any of you feel the same way, here is the link…
http://www.legacy.com/Soldier/Story.aspx?PersonID=3130083
I am so glad Tired of Fighting posted here. Bush keeps us from seeing the tributes to the fallen on tv and in the papers because he knows it will make these “commas” real people and that will hasten this countries resolve to ending this.
It is in the spirit of putting a face with the name that I give you this link. In hopes that the reality of it sinks into some. Out of respect for the man that I did not know and his friend, Tired of Fighting, I hope this doesn’t overreach my limits.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pmOf course Bush will veto this “support the children of America” bill.
In the warped and twisted Bush, Rove and Grover Norquist way of thinking, any taxpayer money spent on helping our nation’s children would be a waste of taxpayer money.
On the other hand, any taxpayer money going to their neo-con Republican corporate pals through no-bid contracts is money well spent.
The Bush war in Iraq is a prime example.
Report after report indicates that our soldiers in Iraq have been shortchanged over and over again, while private contract security companies have gotten all that they have requested and in a timely fashion.
The only positive thing that can be said about these neo-con nutjobs in the Bush administration is that they are consistent.
Given a choice between helping and supporting our troops, or helping their crony corporate pals, they’ll also choose their crony corporate pals.
Given a choice between helping and supporting the children of America, or helping their crony corporate pals through tax cuts and no-bid contracts, they’ll always choose helping their crony corporate pals.
No flexibility. No compromises. No compassion at all for anyone that is not part of their inner-circle of crony corporate pals.
In other words, I have just summed up the entire domestic and foreign policy of the Bush administration. You’re “with them” if you’re part of their crony corporate pal structure, and you’re “against them” if one isn’t a member of this inner-circle of privilege and elitism. (Sounds more aristocratic than American to me. The “loyalists” of the Bush Imperial Presidency holding court in the White House are making out like bandits, while everyone else is being left to fight over the crumbs that might “trickle down” after Bush loyalists have divided up the lion’s share).
July 15th, 2007 at 5:50 pmBush has literally chosen the financial interests of health insurance companies over the needs of 4.1 million children. And he justifies it by saying he doesn’t want to raise a tax on cigarrettes?
Of course! Why should we raise the tax on cigarrettes? Take that money out of Medicare!
July 15th, 2007 at 10:23 pm#4 Excellent!
Comment by m12 — July 15, 2007 @ 12:16 am
Somehow, the picture of Mr. Burns (The Simpsons) is clearly present in my mind now.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:08 amIf Republican friends don’t have their hands deep in the cookie jar with the legislation, the legislation has no chance of surviving a veto with an industry puppet like Bush.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:44 amSee http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1548.cfm for a better explanation.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm