Lucky...

7 pacific I think. NBC???? In a half hour from this post. Time to tap our toes

Well, this would be a valid reason for vetoing it. Aside from any question of fairness in taxing smokers to pay for unrelated children's care, the point of punitive taxes was to discourage smoking and it appears to be working, making it a highly unreliable source of funding. Over time, you got yourself an unfunded mandate. Cigarette taxes should be used for directly related matters, and preferably for one time project spending. A lot of states are addicted to this revenue source and need to change their ways. But why did he veto this, while passing the others. For the simple reason that kids don't vote, poor people vote less, and old people vote in truckloads. Well, when ya talk should be, that opens up a whole new world of opinion. We use our lottery proceeds for schools. I understand you defending Bush and the Republican machine, but when it comes to kid's healthcare, let's find a way. He vetoed it saying it was too much money, not that he didn't like teh funding method, so let's be real here. He was afraid that others would leak into the system and that it was too much money. Actually the truth is that he said he felt too many others would leak in, but he really just didn't want to spend that much on it..... meanwhile, back at the Bush ranch, he signed 150B for his buddies for the pseudo war.

Can't wait to watch it, let's see how the beacon of the moral right shines

>>>>Praising Republicans for fiscal responsibility? Sure, I can praise some - who then SOLD OUT. OK, which ones? >>>>>>>>Spending has been out of control, particularly since 1964. It remained that way through the 1980's and early 1990's. Even during the Clinton years? Even in the GHW Bush years Bush cut the military and raised taxes. He was also a victim of the Reagan years as we all were, but it took him a couple yeas to figure it out. >>>>>>>Recall how horrible Clinton's presidency was the first two years, when he had a Democratic Congress. Recall the major recession he inherited? 7% unemployment, huge interest rates, 250B/yr defiit? HUH, recall that? >>>>>>>>Had Clinton run unopposed for reelection in 1994, he would have lost. Had Perot not split the Republican vote in 92 GWH Bushwould have won, what's your point? >>>>>>Enter the neo-cons with their Contract for America. Balanced budget. Clinton didn't do it with dems, he did it with the GOP. The most efficient and fiscally responsible government is a presidency and legislature of different political parties. They cancel each other out. Evidence of that can be seen by the first GW Bush years minus the Jeffords defection. However, at this point we have a lot of fixing to do and I hope the Dems have control of all 3. Generally I agree with you, but remember, Clinton had to essentially shut down the gov to get things done. As well, when min wage increases came, they came with piggybacked tax cuts for the rich; he signed the first one, refused the second. >>>>>>>>Then the Republicans sold out, got a president of the same party, and had nobody to rein them in. So even those who deserved applause found reasons to be scorned. Bush would have been garbage with whatever Congress we had. >>>>>>>Recall that it was spurned by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Recall that what was spurned bythe 97BB act? >>>>>>Note that during Clinton's first term, the Federal Debt increased 13.2%. He inherited a 250B/yr deficit that stayed steady until about 97 when it turned the corner. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png 13.2% in his first term? That sounds right. He inherited a deficit that was rising at the amount of 250B per year since Reagan, so yes, it took his policies time to implement and work. The 1993 Omnibus speding Bill created tax increases, esp for the rich, which was a part of the fix. >>>>>>>> Clinton had a balanced budget in 2000, and it was in deficit by 2001 OK, what part of 2001? What do you have to support that? How much in deficit to you claim? Also, even if it did, Clinton took a fucked up economy and turned it around. >>>>(note: the 2001 budget was propose dby Clinton, approved by republican congress). Wait, but you said the best system was with opposing president as Congress???????? Bottom line is that we need to quit giving it all away to the military industrial complex and start esuring our people have medical coverage.

I sawe it last couple days and I think he looks awckward. I think he is an alright guy, but he just can't fill bob's shoes.

MSNBC, NPR all the ones I read had virtually the same text. If you have a different take then I woud love to read it..... or, just keep the one-liners comming as always. And that does not raise and red flags for you??? Really?? As for one liners. I suggested someone do thier own reasearch. You came after me!!! Like, that is a problem?? Dam this is fun I did research the issue, even with Fox, posted em all. What is your defense of Bush?

They will, 8 yeas of them whining about her perfrmance while the deficit is balanced, the world is at peace. It will be fn to read the microcosms of BS they drag out while ignoing the substantive issues.....kinda like now.

We ALL are hosed regardless of who wins. "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke This statement is as true now as it was it was in 1989, when O'Rourke published "Holidays in Hell." The Democrats are the party that says government will make you healthy (socialized healthcare), wealthy (redistribution through taxes) and wise (education). So the Republicans blew a trillion on the war. The Dems have blown trillions on the War on Poverty, and will blow trillions more. Now there will be a War on Illness, which will be trillions blown, and the question will be, "Why are people still getting sick and dying? Because we haven't spent enough money on it." The only difference in the parties is what they are willing to blow trillions on. Although there is some obscure truth to that, let's look at history rather than rhetoric. Look at the presidencies from Reagan forward. The debt was fairly stable before then, since then it has skyrocketed durijg the Republican years, sttled during the Dem years. Rhetoric and political slander is fun, but data doesn't lie. Even if we go back to the FDR era, look what POS he inherited and look what he turned out? With a few exceptions, I have a hard time praising any Republicans since Eisenhower, can you?

Here ya go Rushy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html President Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing the new program offers government-run health care to too many Americans who don't need it. Democrats are confident they have a winning issue and are working hard to find enough votes in the House to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override. "Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list," Emanuel said. "President Bush is a one-man axis of evil," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "If this is ‘compassionate conservativism,’ what is cruel and unusual punishment?" Family health care coverage can cost more than $1,000 a month, and Democrats say they have the public on their side. "Once again, the Democratic Party are aligned with 70 percent of the public," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday. On Wednesday, Hoyer announced Oct. 18 as the date the House will attempt to override the veto. He is looking for about 15 Republicans to switch their votes but said he has gotten no commitments so far. The veto — the fourth of Bush's presidency — took place without fanfare, though the president addressed the matter while in Lancaster, Pa., where he gave remarks on the budget and spending. "I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It's called SCHIP, children's health insurance policy," Bush told the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry. "The intent of the program was to focus on poorer children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three person(s) that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance. The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children." The president has said that the 61-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes to pay for the measure is regressive, and the government should not be providing health care to families whose income is as much as $80,000 a year. He also expressed concern that the offer of low-cost, government-provided health care will encourage many people who already are covered by private insurance to switch, adding considerable strain to the government system. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday that Congress sent the bill to the president knowing that he wouldn't sign it, and it's now up to lawmakers to come up with an alternative. Bush had requested $5 billion more for the program over five years. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he was "absolutely confident" that the veto will be sustained. Perino said Congress must negotiate a bill that will ensure that children in families that make less than 200 percent of the poverty level are taken care of before the program is expanded beyond them. "The president is willing to look at ideas" for a compromise "with the focus on the original intent that the neediest children are taken care of first," Perino said. Under the vetoed plan, government-sponsored health coverage would have been expanded from 6.6 million people, mostly children, to include an additional 4 million kids and 700,000 adults. Currently, 9 percent, or 6 million, of the 43 million uninsured Americans are children under 18. SCHIP is available to people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but are not able to afford private insurance. Republicans who oppose the bill aren't going to get off easily. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is already running ads against some GOP lawmakers who voted against SCHIP. Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue. ________________________________________________ It says essentially the same thing. I suppose Fox is now aso a bunch of cum-swilling faggots too, huh Rushy? Your own medium says the same thing. WHat now, do I need to go to Ann COulter's web site before we can find a credible source? I hope this ends your participation in this thread.

MSNBC, NPR all the ones I read had virtually the same text. If you have a different take then I woud love to read it..... or, just keep the one-liners comming as always.

So to answer your assertion, he would sign 5 billion, not more. His lie about too expanded was really about too expensive, if he wanted to have congress wrote in what the families dollar income could be to qualify, then he could have. The truth here is that he has contempt for people other than the very rich and will do nothing to help them. The country has seen this asswipe and the party in general for what it is; incompassionate a'holes. I hope the voters remember the House jackoffs who voted this down.

Why not o a search then, as it is, Bush did veto the bill just as he signed the 150B for his industrial war complex buddies. The country has seen his priorities, let's see you debunk them. Focus, stay on topic, I know you can do it Keep trying I did, Rushy, in fact. read the article I just posted, they also refer to the 200B, now 150B war bill. It IS on topic when we talk spending vetos vs spending allocations. Why not get on topic and let us know what a waste of money it is to care for poor kids..... I agree with you, if it costs more than a buck fifty, fuck the free loaders - so I do agree with you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14938419 President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, after saying the legislation was too costly and had strayed from its original intent. It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could be used against them in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage. The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years, allowing an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families. The president faces a possible rebellion by Republican lawmakers who back the bill. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) berated Bush on the Senate floor for having labeled the legislation "irresponsible" in his radio address Saturday. "If you want to talk about the word responsible and whether Congress is responsible or not in this bill, I would say that anybody that wants to leave the program the way it is — and that's what's going to happen with a veto — that's an irresponsible position to take," Grassley said. House Democratic leaders have said they will wait until next week or later to try to override a veto. They are hoping by then to peel off some 15 Republicans to get the two-thirds majority they need for an override. Texas A&M presidential scholar George Edwards says that lawmakers who stick with the president could pay for it in next year's elections. "I think in a widely supported policy like the SCHIP bill, that the risks are substantial for Republicans," Edwards said. "It's difficult to take the case to the voters on something specific like that when we're talking about health care for children and explain the complex rationale for opposition." Asked why the president has also issued veto threats against almost all the spending bills this year, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has a role to play in the legislative debate. "One of the things the president can do is say, 'I'm not going to sign a bill that comes to me with extraneous spending. I'm not going to sign a bill that has policies in it that should not be a part of the United States policy,'" Perino said. "And so I would hope that we wouldn't have to do veto threats, but I think that the Democrats have shown that these are the types of legislative angles that they're going to take, and that's why the president has to send some veto threats up." At issue is the fact that, added together, the spending bills exceed the president's own budget by some $23 billion. But Dan Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute says that amount is paltry compared with the amount of excess spending that Bush signed during the Republicans' control of Congress. "There certainly does seem to be a legitimate argument that the president only objects to new spending when Democrats are doing it, because he certainly wasn't objecting when Republicans controlled Congress," Mitchell said. On Tuesday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee said that if there is a spending problem, it is the White House asking for nearly $200 billion in war funding. ]/b] "If the president is really concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation that will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs related to our military action in Iraq," Rep. David Obey (D-WI) proposed. If President Bush does not like that cost, he added, he can shut down the war. Most Republicans derided the idea of a war surtax. "You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could." They also paid a war surtax. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the idea a thumbs down; so did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "The speaker said that is not what she wants," Reid explained. "That's good enough for me." Facing a spate of veto threats, Democratic leaders show little appetite for a separate fight over raising taxes. __________________________________________________ You guys are sooooo hosed next November

Why not o a search then, as it is, Bush did veto the bill just as he signed the 150B for his industrial war complex buddies. The country has seen his priorities, let's see you debunk them.

Yet there is so much wasteful spending. Our government COULD do its job with much less than it currently gets if it was in any efficient. It is not. It seems the real difference here is the left saying.. Just give them more money. And the right saying. NO!! Give them less money and make them spend it more wisely. The left is saying, "Let's have a pesident like Clinton, one who balanced the budget and killed the deficit."

Seems like the government needs to sell war bonds again. No special allocations, fund it out of the normal allocation and via 10 year Treasuries. Or better yet, put the line item on the 1040 - war surcharge. Not sure how you make it equitable, but if everyone has to pay several hundred to thousands each, support will be more measured. So what, only 3 of 10 geniuses support Bush's hobby in the desert, it's an executive move, not a popularity move. We are going to be out of the war and with a Dem in Jan 09, the war bond deal would be meaningless and only give congress and teh idiot a reason to further pursue it.

This isnt just about Billionaires here. It is about people that work hard, make good choices in life, Save a some money and then the government stepping in after they paid their share of the taxes on that money and taking even more. Inheritance tax kick in at 2 million (much less in some states) and that is the value of the total Inheritance. Most family farm would exceed this value, Most Small family Business would exceed this value, and In California some "Middle Class" homes alone exceeds this value. Billionaires already set up trusts and other tax dodges and are really that effected by this. The ones that are hit hardest by this this is the upper middle class. The ones that generally played by the rules, Got a good education, were moderately successful at what they did and built something they wanted to leave for their children that will hopefully grow it further. Actually it was about billionaires and their intentions. Some of the people on the conservative side prefered to talk about that rather than talking about how Bush's cut tax and quadruple spending sceme has caused the US dollar to shrink below the Candian buck, at the same time, I just checked and we are over 9T in total debt, not 8.9T. This is the issue teh neo-cons run from and engage in semantic arguments about what one billionaire said/feels over another.

The solution is to not vote in people who spend with reckless abandon on ego driven wars. In the mean time it is a little silly to talk about eliminating taxes when the US is not even close to being able to cover its expenditures. Nor does it look like you might be able to in the future. Raising taxes would be the most honest way of showing the population what exactly is being spent every year. If we quit this pathetic so-called war, cut military spending in 1/2, we would still be #1 four times over, we could balance the budget immediately. Then we could think about ensuring our own people have medical coverage......oh wait, we don't want that, fuck our fellow countrymen/women.

>>>>>>I can assure you that I don't like paying tax any more than you do. Unlike some of you, I concede that paying tax is the price I pay to belong to a civilized western industrial nation. I thought you were American, which civilized nation to you live in?

ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is. **I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on. Fucking idiotic argument you make . You think I don't know money is taxed more than once? I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else. >>>At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. Uh, WHAT????? At some point we will need to elevate taxes to pay for what YOUR candidates have done to this country via tax cuts and inheritance taxes seem to be a great place to start, as we are taxing the money of the dead, often the wealthy dead. Are you not intune to what's going on with all that debt stuff? We are cooked, 9 trillion bucks. The world is cashing in their bonds for fear of losing their ass, the world has no confidence in our money and soon we won't be able to afford the exchange rate to buy foreign goods and we won't be traveling to anywhere but Mexico. Elevate taxes? That solution comes as no surprise. I pay plenty of taxes thank you. I am not in favor of all the wasteful spending that is taking place in Washington. And don't give me the partisan crap. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. I would like to see the Fair Tax put into place but that will never happen because to many people depend on those taxes too make a living. >>>>Elevate taxes? That solution comes as no surprise. Why, because it's true? Or because I'm a Dem? >>>>>>I am not in favor of all the wasteful spending that is taking place in Washington. And don't give me the partisan crap. Which kinds of spending bother you the most? Oh, let me guess.....social spending? But the war, well, we are getting something from that, right? Partisan? Well it is partisan. Who do you think was in office when it escalated? http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif How is it NOT partisan? Here is another graph: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm How is it not partisan? >>>>>>>>Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. Really? >>>I would like to see the Fair Tax put into place but that will never happen because to many people depend on those taxes too make a living. Oh, you're talking military contractors. Oh, did you mean welfare recipients? I ee you bought into all that right wing stuff depicting welfare recipients as freeloaders.

if you have only 20, you survey all 20 of them. The point of sampling is for sets that are too massive to examine individually. Any conclusions you make from 2 would be of little value save propoganda. For example, if one member in a family of 10 commits murders (OJ) or is a pedophile freak (Jackson), can you label the rest of the family as the same? Well, you can, but not honestly. I agree with the science behind that, but 2 of 400+ isn't as small as it seems. OK, I agree, most billionaires want the little scum to pay all the taxes, I agree.

About 500 or so. Why must you exadgerate to try to make a point? There were 371 as of 1 year ago. And 482 as of last month. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/business/main3284771.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3284771 Eiher way, irrelevant as we are talking sample size and going from 400 to 482 doesn't change it that much, we are still at .45% sample size, which surpasses many scientific surveys.

These numbers are accurate, more or less. (The deficit numbers likely still use the SSI surplus to mask the true extent) Those of us not suffering direct personal loss are paying a few thousand to build this nation. Fuck em. But your citation that argued that 80% of debt maintenance can be categorized as military spending is ridiculous. As Lucky has posted every other minute in this thread, the national debt went from 1T to 9T since the beginning of the Reagan years. Reagan had no significant fighting and tripled the debt. His successor had a relatively short conflict. Clinton merely bombed people, for the most part. And now we have a more substantial war. No, tax cuts seem to be the number 1 source of deficit growth. Well below would be fighting and social spending. But that wouldn't have allowed the peaceniks on that site to get it over the magic 50% level, would it? >>>>>>But your citation that argued that 80% of debt maintenance can be categorized as military spending is ridiculous. If you add the war costs plus the typical 550B per year, I would say that Bill's article's numbers are close. Look what CLinton did, he increased taxes and cut spending, but that is the argument; which is necessary to balance the debt? I think military expenditures are the key, as they are the easiest to curtail. Tax increases take, well, an act of Congress, ctting military spending can be done by the kindergartener we have called the executive. >>>>>the national debt went from 1T to 9T since the beginning of the Reagan years. Reagan had no significant fighting and tripled the debt. He just had huge military expenditures, which is Bll's argument. I agree. He had no war and yet was able to triple the debt, so it is military expenditures. OTOH, he also cut taxes like a true neo-con, so the argument becomes somewhat circular. >>>>>>His successor had a relatively short conflict. And finally raised taxes, setting the stage for Clinton's deficit stemming. >>>>>Clinton merely bombed people, for the most part. And now we have a more substantial war. And cut the militay as we did need. >>>>>>>>>>No, tax cuts seem to be the number 1 source of deficit growth. Well below would be fighting and social spending. But that wouldn't have allowed the peaceniks on that site to get it over the magic 50% level, would it? Interesting argument that I can make for either side, I think both are really important. Under Clinton we had: 1) Balanced budget 2) No war 3)

sorry, sampling doesn't work that way. 2 will always be an inadequete sample, esp if not selected randomly. I agree with the random part, but what if there were only 20 from which to choose? 2 would be 10% and adaquate.

ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is. **I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on. Fucking idiotic argument you make . You think I don't know money is taxed more than once? I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else. >>>At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. Uh, WHAT????? At some point we will need to elevate taxes to pay for what YOUR candidates have done to this country via tax cuts and inheritance taxes seem to be a great place to start, as we are taxing the money of the dead, often the wealthy dead. Are you not intune to what's going on with all that debt stuff? We are cooked, 9 trillion bucks. The world is cashing in their bonds for fear of losing their ass, the world has no confidence in our money and soon we won't be able to afford the exchange rate to buy foreign goods and we won't be traveling to anywhere but Mexico.