NationStates Jolt Archive

The man has let spending go rampant and only seems to veto legislation when it's actually going to help people live better lives. The Children's Health Bill had bipartisan support and that just couldn't be for Bush. As long as "childrens do learn" that Bush doesn't give a F about them, the longer he's ensuring Democratic dominance. It seems like the only thing this guy is good at is awarding no bid contracts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

Congress should override that bitch.

Congress should impeach that bitch.
Fixed.

Bush is finally proving his mettle in the field of fiscal responsibility! You can't just go throwing billions of dollars away on pet projects! I feel dirty now.

Bush is finally proving his mettle in the field of fiscal responsibility! You can't just go throwing billions of dollars away on pet projects! I feel dirty now.

As opposed to throwing away HUNDREDS of billions away on immoral wars.

Throwing money away so children might live better lives? Perish the thought. :rolleyes:

Does it have enough support for an override? Or is this thing pretty much dead now?

Throwin money away on failing programs, like abstinence only education? Fine!

Helping uninsured children? Veto!

I realize that his brain resigned, but for fuck's sake! He could have chosen a better bill to make a principled stand about.

Bush is finally proving his mettle in the field of fiscal responsibility! You can't just go throwing billions of dollars away on pet projects! I feel dirty now.

This man has thrown money away at the dumbest of all programs and he wants to cut programs that help kids living in families just barely above the poverty line? This is the bill he much make a stand on? He's only vetoed 4 bills, Fing 4. This is pigheaded stupidity brought to you out of ideological politics.

Bush is finally proving his mettle in the field of fiscal responsibility! You can't just go throwing billions of dollars away on pet projects! I feel dirty now.

This man has thrown money away at the dumbest of all programs and he wants to cut programs that help kids living in families just barely above the poverty line? This is the bill he much make a stand on? He's only vetoed 4 bills, Fing 4. This is pigheaded stupidity brought to you out of ideological politics.

Congress should override that bitch.

Congress is JUST as guilty, if not more so than Bush! They KNEW the bill wouldn't be passed in its current form, and instead of looking for grounds in negotiation, decided to put political posturing above children’s healthcare. Now they have no assurances this bill will even attain an override vote sine they are short some 24 reps in the house to meet the 2/3's. Not only are they NOT necessarily going to get the increased 30 billion to expand the program, but they have jeopardized the children already in the program!

That is probably why congress's approval ratings are just as bad as Bush's. I don’t really see this as a bonus for either side.

Throwin money away on failing programs, like abstinence only education? Fine!

Helping uninsured children? Veto!

I realize that his brain resigned, but for fuck's sake! He could have chosen a better bill to make a principled stand about.

If there has been one message that we've gotten from Il Douche his entire tenure, it has been this: "Fuck the Children."

So much for "compassionate" conservatism...

Congress is JUST as guilty, if not more so than Bush! They KNEW the bill wouldn't be passed in its current form, and instead of looking for grounds in negotiation, decided to put political posturing above children’s healthcare. Now they have no assurances this bill will even attain an override vote sine they are short some 24 reps in the house to meet the 2/3's. Not only are they NOT necessarily going to get the increased 30 billion to expand the program, but they have jeopardized the children already in the program!

That is probably why congress's approval ratings are just as bad as Bush's. I don’t really see this as a bonus for either side.

Ok. So what is so bad about the bill?

All to often bills are created that only do things in name only.

No Child left behind made all sorts of requirements and yet lacked funding to make them possible.

I think peoples main mistakes is believing the shrub is "out of touch" with the common man. I think he really doesn't care.

Congress is JUST as guilty, if not more so than Bush! They KNEW the bill wouldn't be passed in its current form, and instead of looking for grounds in negotiation, decided to put political posturing above children’s healthcare. Now they have no assurances this bill will even attain an override vote sine they are short some 24 reps in the house to meet the 2/3's. Not only are they NOT necessarily going to get the increased 30 billion to expand the program, but they have jeopardized the children already in the program!

That is probably why congress's approval ratings are just as bad as Bush's. I don’t really see this as a bonus for either side.

yeah, why sign a bill that makes some progress? Instead veto it so it remains dead and in the meantime kids suffer. Isn't that the logic the Bush Administration used with social security.? "I know this bill isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction and something needs to be done now." I guess the logic only works one way for them. Also, there is such a thing as ammending a bill and resubmitting it. Perhaps they should just take the time to work out some of the kinks and give it back to him. If he vetoes it yet again then shame on him.

Ok. So what is so bad about the bill?

Why it's one foot in the door that will open the way for Hilliary's Socialized Medicine™ or something equally liberal and vile. Yes I know, "but think of the children!" Next you will want me to think of the Senior Citizens.

Actually I have thought of the children; threats of socialized medicine be damned, I am strongly in favor of this bill.

Last time I checked the bill itself would not withstand a veto, but a similiar bill that would just keep the current system going as it is now could pass a veto threat and negotiations with Republicans could make it veto proof in the future. It's not dead yet.

yeah, why sign a bill that makes some progress? Instead veto it so it remains dead and in the meantime kids suffer. Isn't that the logic the Bush Administration used with social security.? "I know this bill isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction and something needs to be done now." I guess the logic only works one way for them. Also, there is such a thing as ammending a bill and resubmitting it. Perhaps they should just take the time to work out some of the kinks and give it back to him. If he vetoes it yet again then shame on him.

1. If Congress gets the override, there is no other veto.. the bill automatically becomes law.

2. Irregardless of the merits of the bill itself, Congress KNEW he was going to veto it, and were aware they may not have enough votes to proceed with the override yet produced it nonetheless. This tells me they are ready to gamble with childrens healthcare just as much as Bush is.

Congress set the stage for this event. They could have sought a smaller expansion of the program, or simply opted to renew the current funding and try to expand on it at a later time. In stead they throw the whole thing in the grinder and hope for the best.

Wait, wtf? Since when were supposed to be making sure we had 2/3? That's not supposed to be a necessary prerequisite! Veto-proofing?! What happened here? O_o

It's times like this that I love Great Britain. Gordon Brown in all his posturing and buffoonery simply cannot beat the giant balls-uppery of Bush on this latest one.

And what's so bad about socialised medicine? At least everybody gets treated, not just those that can afford it. Give me slow treatment over nothing at all. Besides, you can get excellent private care in Britain like in America, just that those that can't afford such treatment get it anyway.

2. Irregardless of the merits of the bill itself, Congress KNEW he was going to veto it, and were aware they may not have enough votes to proceed with the override yet produced it nonetheless. This tells me they are ready to gamble with childrens healthcare just as much as Bush is.

Bullshit. They can also pass a bill that is the same, but they took the chance of passing something better the first time. That's called not burning all your powder in the first place. It also puts the Rethugs in a bad place, politically, and carries through with another part of the Democratic platform. Moreover, they CAN overcome this veto, if they can get enough pressure on Rethugs in swing districts. By forcing the President to veto the bill (rather than letting him play God-king, which the Dems have allowed far too much), they increase the pressure on the swing-district Rethugs.

1. If Congress gets the override, there is no other veto.. the bill automatically becomes law.

Remember that "Congress" consists of the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both houses must override the veto for the law to be enacted.

Wait, wtf? Since when were supposed to be making sure we had 2/3? That's not supposed to be a necessary prerequisite! Veto-proofing?! What happened here? O_o

It should be a prerequisite when the President is saying flat out he will veto a bill, and the result of that veto minus a 2/3 super majority will be children losing their healthcare coverage.

If congress at all cared about the children they are trying to vilify Bush for effecting, they would have made motions to better assure SOMETHING would come of this bill. They took what should have been a simple renewal process (one the president said he himself supported) and tried to more then double the program, which seems to have resulted in no one having funding!

You shouldn't get to do all this, then attempt to pass the blame when they knew what was going to happen.

It's times like this that I love Great Britain. Gordon Brown in all his posturing and buffoonery simply cannot beat the giant balls-uppery of Bush on this latest one.

And what's so bad about socialised medicine? At least everybody gets treated, not just those that can afford it. Give me slow treatment over nothing at all. Besides, you can get excellent private care in Britain like in America, just that those that can't afford such treatment get it anyway.

Isn't Britian cutting back on some services though, mainly to do with child birth, like not giving the meds to make it easier, denying hospital care to those giving birth in ops to mid-wives?

Remember that "Congress" consists of the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both houses must override the veto for the law to be enacted.

I know....

Actually in this case, the senate does have enough votes... it is the house of reps which doesn't. That in no way of course impacts what I said :']

You shouldn't get to do all this, then attempt to pass the blame when they knew what was going to happen.

I'm not going to reiterate my points from my earlier post (they're still waiting for a response), but, damn you really don't understand politics, do you? With something like this, you can either be bold, or you can fold. Being bold didn't hurt anyway, the origional SCHIP legislation can always be repassed with a veto-proof majority. The Dems could either let the Pretzlenit walk all over them, or they could at least show people that they tried. The Dems can only gain from this, politically.

[QUOTE=Liuzzo;13102095]The man has let spending go rampant and only seems to veto legislation when it's actually going to help people live better lives.
QUOTE]

Will it? Or will the number of children added to the program be matched or exceeded by the number of children dropped from private insurers who decided that it's pointless to insure children when the government does it at taxpayer expense? They say free, but they mean: we all pay. And you can be sure that the parents, doctors, and bureacrats using and running this program are fully aware that they have a responsibility to spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, right?
What is the net gain? What is the outcome? Better or worse, and why?

I've seen far too little actual analysis to make an informed decision, and I know the US government far too well to fall for fall for the MORE MONEY = BETTER SERVICE line that they generally throw at us again, on faith.

The Bush is generally unable to deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences, but Congress simply doesn't care about them. So where does that leave us? Does anyone anywhere have any real information on how a program like this works other than "it's good/bad because they say so and I believe them."??

I would like to see a test done before this is foisted on the nation. Pick a few counties, and see where things are in 3 years.

Isn't Britian cutting back on some services though, mainly to do with child birth, like not giving the meds to make it easier, denying hospital care to those giving birth in ops to mid-wives?

No, we're just not treating fat people unless they help themselves. There are fewer midwives, yes, but epidurals are still available - some doctors apparently don't like dishing them out, but still available they be.

As for denying hospital care, it's a shortage of midwives rather than the NHS saying "no, we won't treat you". They get the treatment, just from a doctor or regular nurse. Hardly ideal, but then such is the way with an inefficient bureaucracy-choked system under an incompetent government that thinks that throwing money at a system and dishing targets solves problems.

Man I should start my political party now. British Authoritarian Party FTW!

Ever have that moment where you go "Holy shit, this is fucked up"?

It should be a prerequisite when the President is saying flat out he will veto a bill, and the result of that veto minus a 2/3 super majority will be children losing their healthcare coverage.

If congress at all cared about the children they are trying to vilify Bush for effecting, they would have made motions to better assure SOMETHING would come of this bill. They took what should have been a simple renewal process (one the president said he himself supported) and tried to more then double the program, which seems to have resulted in no one having funding!

You shouldn't get to do all this, then attempt to pass the blame when they knew what was going to happen.

Uh, no. Congress makes laws. The president doesn't tell them what laws they're not supposed to make, he just deals with whatever they do. It's not your fault the bully kicked down your sand-castle.

Hardly ideal, but then such is the way with an inefficient bureaucracy-choked system under an incompetent government that thinks that throwing money at a system and dishing targets solves problems.

and you want my country to adopt the same inefficient bureaucracy-choked system under an equally incompetent government who is filled with people who think throwing money at a system will help it?

*scoff*

and you want my country to adopt the same inefficient bureaucracy-choked system under an equally incompetent government who is filled with people who think throwing money at a system will help it?

*scoff*

To be honest, compared to what we have now...

and you want my country to adopt the same inefficient bureaucracy-choked system under an equally incompetent government who is filled with people who think throwing money at a system will help it?

*scoff*

Only inefficient because of recent governments - we expect you to learn from our mistakes and make an efficient non-choked system that can actually do it's job properly and provide healthcare to everyone. Hark back to previous years, when the NHS did an excellent job at what it was supposed to do, and at a fraction of the cost.

I'm not going to reiterate my points from my earlier post (they're still waiting for a response), but, damn you really don't understand politics, do you? With something like this, you can either be bold, or you can fold. Being bold didn't hurt anyway, the origional SCHIP legislation can always be repassed with a veto-proof majority. The Dems could either let the Pretzlenit walk all over them, or they could at least show people that they tried. The Dems can only gain from this, politically.

You forget its capital hill. This is not a place things are done expeditiously. Yes they are still waiting for a response, tho it seems they will not get their super majority. Yes the original legislation can always be re-passed (not that it would require a veto proof majority since the president originally called for a simple renewal). HOWEVER, those motions still have to come up and until that time no funding will exist for the program. As well, in stead of looking for a simple renewal (as that would be bowing to the original intent of the Republicans) the democrats will most likely look for a work around.

All of this takes time and it could indeed be months (if not more) before a solution is produced. Politically, yes of course its only a win-win for democrats... they can cry that bush cares nothing for children since it always looks good on paper. Does that mean that they at all care about the children they are fighting for? Hardly. Are they in fact the reason why at this moment no funding exists for the programs.. in large part yes!

I'm not arguging how polticially sound this is. Of course its a sound strategy (duh). I'm arguing the morality of such a tactic! They are playing with the lives of under privliaged children.

You forget its capital hill. This is not a place things are done expeditiously. Yes they are still waiting for a response, tho it seems they will not get their super majority. Yes the original legislation can always be re-passed (not that it would require a veto proof majority since the president originally called for a simple renewal). HOWEVER, those motions still have to come up and until that time no funding will exist for the program. As well, in stead of looking for a simple renewal (as that would be bowing to the original intent of the Republicans) the democrats will most likely look for a work around.

All of this takes time and it could indeed be months (if not more) before a solution is produced. Politically, yes of course its only a win-win for democrats... they can cry that bush cares nothing for children since it always looks good on paper. Does that mean that they at all care about the children they are fighting for? Hardly. Are they in fact the reason why at this moment no funding exists for the programs.. in large part yes!

I'm not arguging how polticially sound this is. Of course its a sound strategy (duh). I'm arguing the morality of such a tactic! They are playing with the lives of under privliaged children.

So...dems are playing with lives...because...they're letting Bush veto the bill?

Only inefficient because of recent governments - we expect you to learn from our mistakes and make an efficient non-choked system that can actually do it's job properly and provide healthcare to everyone. Hark back to previous years, when the NHS did an excellent job at what it was supposed to do, and at a fraction of the cost.

We're talking about the same US Government right?

We're talking about the same US Government right?

*shrug* It's only our fault if the government sucks, surely?

We're talking about the same US Government right?

Indeed. I realise the fallacy of my own statement now. [/dunce]

Indeed. I realise the fallacy of my own statement now. [/dunce]

I won an argument! :D *eats slice of cheese cake*

Seriously though, unless we get a better government, or at least a government that isn't run by incompetent morons then NHS over here is going to be as big of a mess as it is in Britain.

You forget its capital hill. This is not a place things are done expeditiously. Yes they are still waiting for a response, tho it seems they will not get their super majority. Yes the original legislation can always be re-passed (not that it would require a veto proof majority since the president originally called for a simple renewal). HOWEVER, those motions still have to come up and until that time no funding will exist for the program. As well, in stead of looking for a simple renewal (as that would be bowing to the original intent of the Republicans) the democrats will most likely look for a work around.

All of this takes time and it could indeed be months (if not more) before a solution is produced. Politically, yes of course its only a win-win for democrats... they can cry that bush cares nothing for children since it always looks good on paper. Does that mean that they at all care about the children they are fighting for? Hardly. Are they in fact the reason why at this moment no funding exists for the programs.. in large part yes!

I'm not arguging how polticially sound this is. Of course its a sound strategy (duh). I'm arguing the morality of such a tactic! They are playing with the lives of under privliaged children.


No they aren't. See, the thing about being the majority party is that you set the agenda. There's nothing that requires the SCHIP bill spend a second in committee. They could repass the previous legislation tonight, if they wanted to. Moreover, the program didn't expire today, and it won't expire for a while yet. If you understood politics, you'd get this: this was a no-harm vote, not just politically, but for the children on SCHIP. Unless the Rethugs decide to try and stall a repassing of the origional SCHIP legislation, the children on SCHIP will get the funding they already have. The only thing that could come out of this is MORE money for SCHIP.

And, of course, I have to note: why are you wasting time on the Democrats? THEY actually got this passed: the party at fault here is the Rethugs.

The SCHIP program ALREADY expired ... (Sept. 30th) -_-;

W/o the super majority the program loses its funding until a resolution is reached.

Yes the majority party (in each house) gets to set the agenda. But the bill will have to go through both houses again. Which is not exactly a day long process.

where was that "no-harm" vote again ?

considering the vote we actually had was for giving more money, um, not in congress?

No they aren't. See, the thing about being the majority party is that you set the agenda. There's nothing that requires the SCHIP bill spend a second in committee. They could repass the previous legislation tonight, if they wanted to. Moreover, the program didn't expire today, and it won't expire for a while yet. If you understood politics, you'd get this: this was a no-harm vote, not just politically, but for the children on SCHIP. Unless the Rethugs decide to try and stall a repassing of the origional SCHIP legislation, the children on SCHIP will get the funding they already have. The only thing that could come out of this is MORE money for SCHIP.

And, of course, I have to note: why are you wasting time on the Democrats? THEY actually got this passed: the party at fault here is the Rethugs.

The SCHIP program ALREADY expired ... (Sept. 30th) -_-;

W/o the super majority the program loses its funding until a resolution is reached.

Yes the majority party (in each house) gets to set the agenda. But the bill will have to go through both houses again. Which is not exactly a day long process.

where was that "no-harm" vote again ?

The SCHIP program ALREADY expired ... (Sept. 30th) -_-;

W/o the super majority the program loses its funding until a resolution is reached.

Yes the majority party (in each house) gets to set the agenda. But the bill will have to go through both houses again. Which is not exactly a day long process.

I'm pretty sure you've confused the expiration date with the date the funds stop. They're two different things.

And, once again, if you knew anything about DC, you'd know that the time between when a vote is held in the House and when it is held in the Senate can be a difference of just a few hours. The great "slowing" process is debate, which can be cut off in the House by the speaker, and will be cut off in the Senate by a cloture vote (unless, of course, the Rethugs try to keep cloture from being reached).

Now, once again, why are you focusing on the Democrats, who are doing the right thing, to defend the Rethuglicans who are doing the truly morally abhorable thing?

Bush seems to want to drink the blood of MORE defenseless children...

American Politics phails.

It should be a prerequisite when the President is saying flat out he will veto a bill, and the result of that veto minus a 2/3 super majority will be children losing their healthcare coverage.This shows considerable ignorance of how politics actually works:

Lesson #1: Politicians don't always tell the truth. This is a big one. It means that a veto threat is just that: a veto threat. Presidents sometimes insist that they will veto a bill in order to get Congress to make it more to their liking before ever sending it up... but they don't always follow through. Public pressure gets to them, or they were never serious in the first place: it was a "bluff," and sometimes Congress tries to call the bluff.

Lesson #2: Forcing a veto when you have nearly 2/3 (and they're not far off on this one) focuses attention on potential swing votes: you don't know you can't override until you try. Now, remember Lesson #1? Sometimes, if you're close enough, this is precisely the reason a President will back down on his veto threat: if he thinks there's a fair chance you might get the override, then he'll think twice about opposing a popular bill and losing anyway.

Lesson #3: Even without the override, negotiation isn't over yet. Bush said today that he would consider negotiating to give Congress some expansion of the program, but not as much as they want in this bill. Concentrate now, because this is key: what would have happened if Congress had tried to appease Bush in advance--if they would have asked for, say, half as extensive an expansion in the first place hoping that he would agree? Why, then he could have vetoed that and reduced the expansion even further.

If Congress doesn't get the override, they are still very much in "opening bid" territory--especially since by showing just how close they could get to an override on this bill, they demonstrate just how strong their bargaining position is. They make it more likely that they will achieve a large expansion (if not as large as this one) in renegotiations.

To summarize: trying to produce a veto-proof bill is, in most cases, unnecessarily to turn bargaining power over to the President.

I'm pretty sure you've confused the expiration date with the date the funds stop. They're two different things.


Actually... their not. Though feel free to find that date for me :']

And, once again, if you knew anything about DC, you'd know that the time between when a vote is held in the House and when it is held in the Senate can be a difference of just a few hours. The great "slowing" process is debate, which can be cut off in the House by the speaker, and will be cut off in the Senate by a cloture vote (unless, of course, the Rethugs try to keep cloture from being reached).

Can such votes happen within hours of each other .. sure. Does Capital hill usually work that efficently, uh no. At the end of the day, there will still be negotitations to see HOW MUCH of an increase will be made. And that I can certinatly assure you will not happen in as timely a manner as you suggest it will.

I'm sure democrats will vote for a temporary extension, though most healthcare advocates are saying that will be insufficent to be sure all familes remain covered.

Now, once again, why are you focusing on the Democrats, who are doing the right thing, to defend the Rethuglicans who are doing the truly morally abhorable thing?

abhorable thing... to not include familes who already have the means to attain private funding ? vs familes who do not (which the program orginally was focused on). I think the morally abhorable thing is putting everything on hold while they play politics on big vs small government run healthcare.

Bush seems to want to drink the blood of MORE defenseless children...

Well, we already knew he got a hard on from international war crimes, naked aggression, grand theft, cronyism and spilling the blood of innocent brown people. It's only natural that he'd move on to drinking the blood of children in our country. ;)

Actually... their not. Though feel free to find that date for me :']

What this means is that funds are no longer being sent, not that there are no funds. There's a difference. Funds will probably not run out for a while yet.

Can such votes happen within hours of each other .. sure. Does Capital hill usually work that efficently, uh no. At the end of the day, there will still be negotitations to see HOW MUCH of an increase will be made. And that I can certinatly assure you will not happen in as timely a manner as you suggest it will.

You know nothing about capitol hill. Yes, close and difficult bills do take a long time to get through. This is not true of high-priority noncontentious bills. If it doesn't go to committee, doesn't have sustained debate (and there will be none) and is put as a priority on the agenda by the leadership, it can pass within a day. Don't talk about shit you clearly have no understanding of.

abhorable thing... to not include familes who already have the means to attain private funding ? vs familes who do not (which the program orginally was focused on). I think the morally abhorable thing is putting everything on hold while they play politics on big vs small government run healthcare.

Abhorable thing: opposing expanding SCHIP to include families getting fucked by the insane, corrupt, and exploitative health care industry's tactics. Abhorable thing: letting the lobbying interests of the AMA and the insurance lobby win over the wellbeing of American children. Abhorable thing: falsely equating the ability to pay for and the actual ability to get necessary treatment while paying for, healthcare.

But, of course, the Rethugs will make it all about "small government" because their friends in the insurance industry have payed them very, very well indeed.

[QUOTE=Liuzzo;13102095]The man has let spending go rampant and only seems to veto legislation when it's actually going to help people live better lives.
QUOTE]

Will it? Or will the number of children added to the program be matched or exceeded by the number of children dropped from private insurers who decided that it's pointless to insure children when the government does it at taxpayer expense? They say free, but they mean: we all pay. And you can be sure that the parents, doctors, and bureacrats using and running this program are fully aware that they have a responsibility to spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, right?
What is the net gain? What is the outcome? Better or worse, and why?

I've seen far too little actual analysis to make an informed decision, and I know the US government far too well to fall for fall for the MORE MONEY = BETTER SERVICE line that they generally throw at us again, on faith.

The Bush is generally unable to deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences, but Congress simply doesn't care about them. So where does that leave us? Does anyone anywhere have any real information on how a program like this works other than "it's good/bad because they say so and I believe them."??

I would like to see a test done before this is foisted on the nation. Pick a few counties, and see where things are in 3 years.

Here's a simple question... Do you think that children living in familes barely above the povery line have parents who get corporate paid healthcare? Do you think they can afford private healthcare plans? This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. If these were middle class educated people we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead what we're really talking about is people who have 1 foot in the welfare door and are trying to stay out if it (taxpayer expense as you put it). A few doctor bills for a child who just seems to keep getting sick (probably due to the lack of nutritous food and poor living conditions) can put these people on the public dole. Think long term man. You want to pay for the whole family on welfare, or just the children in this program?

To summarize: trying to produce a veto-proof bill is, in most cases, unnecessarily to turn bargaining power over to the President.


First rule of negotiation, ask for everything, settle for less (if you have to).

This shows considerable ignorance of how politics actually works:

<snip>



...... continually touting your political "knowledge" is meaningless....

Did I say this was a poor political move ? no.. actually I said it was a good one.

Did I say an eventual resolution wont be made ? no... actually I said it probably will although in the mean time families may well lose coverage!

Did I say negotitations end if the override fails ? no... actually I was complaining that neogitations will take some time (weeks, maybe even months) before a real resolution is created (unlike the fairly short time (a day or less) Kinda Sensible people was suggesting it is going to take)

But I'm just wondering, o guru of political know it all's, just how many times has this president expressed a willingness to reneg on his current position if beliving it is the right one ? (remember now... we are still spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war because "its the right thing").

To summarize: I basically acknowledged all the great "wisdom" you shared with us, before you even shared it ! Yes this is a ploy to get the additional funding they want, but that in order to do so, they threatening under priviliaged familes healthcare coverage! (which is why I stated this should have occured before the deadline passed)

before a real resolution is created (unlike the fairly short time (a day or less) Kinda Sensible people was suggesting it is going to take)

The Dems are already gearing up to push through stopgap spending. Not an issue. Once again, if you knew anything about DC at all, you'd understand the difference between the contentious bill and the noncontentious bill. A noncontentious stopgap or simple reinstatement will take a day, if it becomes necessary. I beleive that, first, the Dems will try a simple override with their leverage, and then move on to stopgaps.

You really need to do some more research on how Washington works, rather than applying your own political biases to what is going on.

The Dems are already gearing up to push through stopgap spending. Not an issue. Once again, if you knew anything about DC at all, you'd understand the difference between the contentious bill and the noncontentious bill. A noncontentious stopgap or simple reinstatement will take a day, if it becomes necessary. I beleive that, first, the Dems will try a simple override with their leverage, and then move on to stopgaps.

You really need to do some more research on how Washington works, rather than applying your own political biases to what is going on.

Stopgap spending being the usual quick fix while an issue goes back for debate and drowns in the ocean of politics on capital hill.... ya, know all about it, thanks for the unnecessary lesson tho :']

stopgap spending won't prevent families from being dropped from the program because as it is now, states area already running out of funding (like they did back in march, if you actually know anything about the program)

The difference between us is, your arguing semantics of political strategizing, while I'm arguing what is going to effect the people these programs are suppose to be supporting. Go figure....

Stopgap spending being the usual quick fix while an issue goes back for debate and drowns in the ocean of politics on capital hill.... ya, know all about it, thanks for the unnecessary lesson tho :']

stopgap spending won't prevent families from being dropped from the program because as it is now, states area already running out of funding (like they did back in march, if you actually know anything about the program)

The difference between us is, your arguing semantics of political strategizing, while I'm arguing what is going to effect the people these programs are suppose to be supporting. Go figure....

But you aren't really. You're making unsubstantiated, broad claims to cover up for the real villains in this case: the Republican Party and George Bush, by playing the "Democrats did it" card. I expect your next argument will be that "Clinton Did it"? Stopgap spending will not drop people from the program.

The difference between us is that you are engaging in disengenuous attack dog politics hidden behind obtuse and unseeing rhetoric, and I am not.

Throwin money away on failing programs, like abstinence only education? Fine!

Helping uninsured children? Veto!

I realize that his brain resigned, but for fuck's sake! He could have chosen a better bill to make a principled stand about.

He has principles, even if few.
Simply put, people keep assigning a morality and ethical responsibility he neither understands, endorses, nor even recognizes.

All .. ALL you have to do is follow the $ trail with that putrid boxer-briefs skidmark, and his supposed executive prerogative has the veils lifted.

We all know where the money leads to. The worst part is that Bush is a figurehead for the actual problem we are facing in America. "Colonialism is sponsored by corporations, that's why Hallibrton get paid to rebuild nations." Bush isn't the first, but he's by far the worst offender.

The difference between us is that you are engaging in disengenuous attack dog politics hidden behind obtuse and unseeing rhetoric, and I am not.

hmmmm....

Once again, if you knew anything about DC at all

Yeah, you're sure rising above the fray there kiddo.