Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I begin by stating that I am not an american, and you may well say "That's none of your business", but I just have to express my amazement and shock at dear mr. Bush and his choices...
I was reading an article on cnn (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...ef=mpstoryview) with the title above, and was wondering... So Bush refuses to give $35 billion to fund healthcare for poor children in the US, but at the same time keeps on demanding more and more funds to support his war effort!
That's very christian of him!... No funding for the poor children! The money must be used to kill people (they're muslim, but they're human too!)
This is the kind of thing that shocks me, because I am a christian myself, and cannot begin to understand how a man can urge his fellow citizens to pray, and claim he talks with God, but then goes and takes these decisions...
Mathew 7:16 says "By their fruit you will recognize them...". I fear mr Bush has not read Mathew 7:21-23 with the required care.
Plus, the Bush's Administration's position on global warming... What? Are they waiting for any more disasters to start doing something about it? Are they waiting for others to do something about it?
When people want to do something about the environment, there's always something in the way... What was that? Oh, right... $$$...
I sure hope California's fuel effiency standards get a go. It goes to show some people are committed to the matter, and want things to change!
That's just so appalling! Get that man out of office as soon as you can!
If you follow American politics - you will notice that NONE of the current Republican (President Bush Party) contenders has solicited his endorsement - or mentioned his name
I begin by stating that I am not an american, and you may well say "That's none of your business", but I just have to express my amazement and shock at dear mr. Bush and his choices...
I was reading an article on cnn (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...ef=mpstoryview) with the title above, and was wondering... So Bush refuses to give $35 billion to fund healthcare for poor children in the US, but at the same time keeps on demanding more and more funds to support his war effort!
That's very christian of him!... No funding for the poor children! The money must be used to kill people (they're muslim, but they're human too!)
This is the kind of thing that shocks me, because I am a christian myself, and cannot begin to understand how a man can urge his fellow citizens to pray, and claim he talks with God, but then goes and takes these decisions...
Mathew 7:16 says "By their fruit you will recognize them...". I fear mr Bush has not read Mathew 7:21-23 with the required care.
Plus, the Bush's Administration's position on global warming... What? Are they waiting for any more disasters to start doing something about it? Are they waiting for others to do something about it?
When people want to do something about the environment, there's always something in the way... What was that? Oh, right... $$$...
I sure hope California's fuel effiency standards get a go. It goes to show some people are committed to the matter, and want things to change!
That's just so appalling! Get that man out of office as soon as you can!
Mr Bush is not vetong the bill because he dislikes the poor. This bill funds people who make up to $80,000 a YEAR, far from "poor", and then bill me for it in my taxes.
$80,000 a year is 3 times what I make, and I'm expected to subsidize their insurance? I dont think so. Furthermore, as for your "christian" comment.. The poor already have healthcare here in America.. Its called Medicaid.. So before you start making this an "anti poor".. learn the facts at hand.
The Democrats are VERY WELL AWARE what type of bill they can pass to get the veto overwritten by other Republicans, or the bill signed by Bush, its the Democrats who are trying to use this as a political statement by not getting a bill that is signable.
Plenty of people in this forum very much appreciate President Bush repeating his veto because they feel that parents are supposed to be held accountable for coming up with the money to pay for their childrens' medical care and that it is wrong and immoral to run to the government for help with that. Many of the same people think it is wrong to help poor people in need because all you're doing with your help is rewarding them for being poor and teaching them they don't have to rely upon themselves for support.
Some people are hoping that the President and his advisors are looking after the American people and their interests even though it may appear otherwise in the media. Those that feel this way are inclined to believe that Bush and his advisors have access to confidential or privaleged information the rest of us do not. For these people, they trust things are being decided correctly.
The rest of the American public are taking everything at face value and believe he is a horrible President, and one who is making (and who has made) all the wrong choices. These people make up the majority of the US right now... the majority of those in politics as well as citizens.
There's little sense in describing where I stand on this. I do have concerns about particular political issues today. Outsourcing to low-cost countries is near the top of my list, as is affordable healthcare for all, a social security system which is well-funded and which really provides enough payout to live off of, environmental responsibility, and a reformed educational system which actually imparts relevant knowledge to children. Lastly, I'd love to see in whatever happens, that US liberties are protected (and those which have been stripped, reinstated).
Mr Bush is not vetong the bill because he dislikes the poor. This bill funds people who make up to $80,000 a YEAR, far from "poor", and then bill me for it in my taxes.
$80,000 a year is 3 times what I make, and I'm expected to subsidize their insurance?
pghquest, I can understand your position on the bill and its details which I am not well aware of, but I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm not arguing whether the bill should pass or not. I'm not arguing whether you should be taxed for wealthier families to enjoy a healthcare system. What I am saying is mr Bush's decisions are very questionable.
Ok, you may not be taxed for that purpose, but you ARE being taxed to fund a war with questionable motives, and even more questionable positive effects. Wouldn't you prefer to be taxed so that children have access to healthcare (even if their parents earn more than you do) instead of being taxed so that people can be killed?
[i]As long as the income brackets remain as high as they currently are, allowing some parents to receive supplemented health care, I say no and hope the President continues to veto the bill.
MOD CUT
Last edited by NewToCA; 12-13-2007 at 08:10 PM..
Reason: comment on the topic, and don't challenge other poster's right to participate in discussion
pghquest, I can understand your position on the bill and its details which I am not well aware of, but I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm not arguing whether the bill should pass or not. I'm not arguing whether you should be taxed for wealthier families to enjoy a healthcare system. What I am saying is mr Bush's decisions are very questionable.
Ok, you may not be taxed for that purpose, but you ARE being taxed to fund a war with questionable motives, and even more questionable positive effects. Wouldn't you prefer to be taxed so that children have access to healthcare (even if their parents earn more than you do) instead of being taxed so that people can be killed?
Poor children DO have access to healthcare, but to equate healthcare, a "perminant" entitlement once in place with a war, is a rediculous argument. EACH bill needs to stand by itself, and you cant make an argument that by not liking this bill, Bush is anti children, especially since you dont know the specifics of the bill.
To use your example though of "healthcare" vs "war", lets look at these one at a time.
Healthcare: Currently controlled on a state by state basis.
War: Currently controlled by the federal government.
Both of these are EXACTLY has the founding fathers intended out government to run. The federal government holds 100% authority to control "war" and protecting our borders (something its not doing right now). It holds absolutely no authority established by our founding fathers to take over the liabilities of the states to make them federal issues.
There is a huge difference between expecting our government to do its job, (i.e. protection) vs demanding that our government provide us with services that it was not authorized to provide (healthcare)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
