Still the intellegence was deemed solid. And the article says the opposite of what the poster implied. Bush did not lie, nor did the article say that Bush said that Saddam was involved in 9 11. And the article confirmed that Bush didn't say that Saddam was involved with Al Queda. The article said that they had met. I am really getting tired of the people that hate Bush and calling him a liar lying all the time. For the last time, Bush did not lie. And he never said Saddam was involved in 9 11.

The Constitution gives our government the power to wage war, not to provide health care for people. If you want it to say that, then push for an admentment to the Constitution. Until then, its unConstitutional. I wonder why some people scream and say Bush is bypassing the Constitution but then scream and yell when he DOESN't bypass the Constitution?

For a President who is no longer significant, he sure does have the Congressional panties in a bunch.

Given, the clarity in the above logic you would think it would be easy to get the support needed to pass the bill and de-fund the war given the presumption the money would be better spent. Have you given any thought to what the problem is - other than Bush's fucked up priorities?

Other than it being unconstitutional?

ace.....we've been through the numbers games on both the war and SCHIP....vetoes and cloture votes by republicans. It doesnt change the facts that the public overwhelmingly supports SCHIP (75%) and underwhelmingly supports Bush's war policies in Iraq (25%).

john....please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread. THere is nothing unconstitutional about SCHIP.

You might also read the letter from the Chair of the House Commerce and Energy Committee to the Secretary of HHS asking the Secretary to explain all the misrepresentation (lies?) of the SCHIP bill by Bush.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres....SCHIPveto.pdf

I guess that is the point. If the poll numbers are true, why isn't SCHIP getting passed at the funding levels originally proposed and why isn't the war being de-funded? Like I said the clarity in your logic is compelling. There must be a reason, other than Bush.

ace...the reason is simple....Republican members of Congress who sustain SCHIP veto in House and use cloture tactics on alternatives to Bush's war strategy in the Senate....against the wishes of the American people :)

As a result of both positions and tactics, the Republican party is very likely to lose even more seats in both houses in 08.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal Government is to pay for your health care?

The same place it says the federal government can tax workers to provide income security for older americans...or use tax dollars to provide subsidies to farmers to not grow particular crops....or use proceeds of the federal gas tax to give grants to private institutions for alternative energy R&D....or to give federal tax dollars back to local governments (who in turn give those tax dollars to local organizations) for community development projects...or to use federal tax dollars to promulgate and enforce environmental regulations, etc. ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes....and provide for the....general Welfare of the United States").

Again, please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread....start here and work you way back. :)

Your argument that SCHIP is unconstitutional has no basis in constitutional law. In fact, in 200+ years, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down as being unconstitutional because it did not serve the general welfare.

16 words=lie

The unconstitutional argument is really weak and not even worth responding to.

The Constitution does not take the right to provide health care away from the Federal Government. Please point to the clause that says that they do not have this right, duty or ability, however you want to phrase it.

Now you confuse me. If Bush is no longer significant and the poll numbers are true, why would Republican members of Congress give into Bush's wishes? Also, Bush and the Republicans need Democrats to fund the war. Wouldn't it be logical for Democrats to de-fund the war given higher priorities domestically like SCHIP? Is that going to be their up coming strategy given the point you made so clearly? Or, is there more to it than Bush's screwed up priorities?

The term welfare as used in the Constitution means welfare of the United States. Not the CITIZENS of the United States.

Here it is in context

The framers were talking about raising monies for defence and ablity to keep the United States afloat. No where does it imply health care of the people in any way shap or form.

You obviously dont want to read the different opinions of the framers on the intent of the general welfare clause....or the subsequent interpretations and rulings by the Supreme Court. If the Court held that Social Security (and Mediicare) for seniors was within Congress' power to tax and spend under the general welfare clause, it is reasonable to assume the same would apply to health care for children of uninsured working class families.

But what better indicator of the well-being of a nation than the well-being of its people? If the United States wants to keep "afloat," she'd best keep her crew healthy and able-bodied.

The whole sentence is about raising money to run the govenment. It does not mention its people. Why would the sentence be about the government, then switch its subject in them middle, then go back? Had it been about the people, it would have said so.

Apparently, that depends on whether you are a Madisonian or a Hamiltonian.

Which one thinks it unconstitutional for the government to steal my money to pay for illegal aliens' health care?

It also depends on whether he accepts the Supreme Court interpretation of the general welfare clause or continues to insist on his own interpretation.

Not really relevant since the SCHIP program excludes illegals and has a 5 year waiting period for legal immigrants.

In any case, the Democrats will introduce a new bill tomorrow with minor technical adjustments to mollify the Republican concerns (even though those concerns were false) and Bush has indicated a willingness to expand coverage to 300% of the poverty level, with some conditions.

There is still the issue of the funding level, but that too will be resolved because all sides recognize the past success and current value of the program in meeting the health insurance needs of working Americans whose employers do not offer coverage.

"General Welfare of the United States".

Keeping citizens alive seems to fit that definition pretty nicely. The Supreme Court has upheld similar arguments for the last 75 years or so for similar programs.

As DC pointed out, there's no provision in SCHIP to pay for illegals. To the contrary, there's language excluding illegals, and it's being refined further.

Hey DC - Looks like some people in Congress are against SCHIP because they think the cost outweigh the benefits and not because of Bush. Go figure, who would ever think such a thing - a few in NC?

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/333207.html

ace...a NO vote from a tobacco state? What a surpise.

BTW, NC is also receiving $3.9 billion over the next 10 years as payment for Bush's 2004 program to end federal subsidies of tobacco.
http://www.nccob.org/NCCOB/Financial...accoBuyout.htm

Thats a nice chunk of change for NC tobacco growers to ease the pain of withdrawal from years of getting "welfare" from the feds for growing an addictive product.

It is not a surprise that people do what they think is in their best interest, nor is it a surprise that those who fail to support what you support are; screwed up/have dishonest motives/hacks/etc. while those who do support what you support is always looking out for the good of mankind. Honest people can disagree on this bill for a number of reasons that don't have anything to do with not wanting to help poor children.

It get tiresome hearing the same talking point over and over from the left saying anyone who is against SCHIP is against helping poor children. Perhaps it is time for a new talking point. Don't you agree?

....anything for a buck....ehhh, ace? The congressmen from NC mentioned in your posts should be impeached....they are tools of the special interests who are the foundation for my argument about the "two tier" malignancy in the US that results in the superior numbers of "have nots" in the US, "taking it" in the nether regions from the buying out of the political power due them by the wealthy elite. Would a congressman who works for the greater good....a sincere representative of his constituents allow himself to have his vote (it isn't "his" vote...he's supposed to bring the collective will of his constituents to congress, or he should get the eff out....cede his privileges to someone who will vote the people's will..or in their best interests....) "bought" by corporations with profits greatly enhanced by...buying away populist political influence.....


`

I dont see anything wrong in pointing out the facts when the WH and other Republicans have misrepresented this bill.

In general, I agree with your observation/complaint, but lets not pretend that kind of rhetoric is only a "left" thing.

I would suggest that it gets tiresome hearing the same talking points over and over from the right saying anyone opposed to Bush's war policy is weak on terrorism and against our men and women in uniform.


edit:
I thnk Host summed up the influence of the tobacco industy pretty well....an industry with a hell of a lot more money to influence public policy than child advocacy organizations.

BTW....Cong. Robin Hayes (R-NC) who opposed this bill is in the top 10 recipients (out of 535 members of House and Senate) in contributions from agribusiness....to the tune of nearly $1/4 million in 06:
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/s...315&cycle=2006

Imagine the nerve of a guy taking money from one of his constituent groups.

I think he laid out a good argument for the people in North Carolina to consider, if the net cost is greater than the net benefit - why should anyone in the state support the bill? Yes, you can dispute his numbers, but you can not dispute the fact that some states will send more money for the program than they get back in services for the program.

Working class families w/o insurance in NC are also a constitutent group....but they cant afford to give $1/4 million to his election campaign.

I dont have a`problem with people who oppose the bill on philosophical or cost grounds. I do have a problem when they misrepresent the bill (like Bush and many Repub members of Congress did or those who say it is unconstitutional) or those who complain about its impact in a vaccum.

The net loss in NC, if in fact the study is correct, is more than offset by the $3.9 billion of tax dollars over the next 10 years from you, me and the rest of the country, to wean NC off of 50+ years of federal tobacco subsidies and prices supports (again paid all those years by tax revenue from you, me and other non-carolinians).

There are winners and losers among the states in most every federal categorical and block grant program, just as there are winners and losers among the states when it comes to overall federal spending by state per dollar of federal taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFil...tsbs-large.jpg

NC gets back $1.10 in federal spending for every $1.00 in federal taxes. I dont think Cong. Hayes would complain about that....but Hillary, Barak, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should raise hell :)

I have already made the point that it is inefficient to have the federal government funding state programs compared to the states collecting and spending money on their own programs. Federal spending should be for the common good. I think health care for children is a common good issue and should not be subject to the wealth or whims of individual states. Every child should be treated the same, address should not be a factor.

Also the fundamental problem with the tobacco tax to fund this program is not only is it regressive in nature, but it is asking a specific group to pay for a program that we all should pay for.

It is pretty easy to shout lets do the right thing and then ask someone else to pay for it. If this program passes it should be paid for through general funds.

ace....I propose a deal, with you....

I'll support your "every state on it's own"....independently raising taxes to sustain it's own programs....and when your changes take effect...and the impact of them is felt..... I have your approval to leaflet the residents of these two states:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...6&cat=1&ind=10

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...0&cat=1&ind=10

.....to inform and encourage them to move to your county. I'll use a catchy slogan like..... there is more quality of life and better opportunity awaiting in ace's county.....even if I have to camp in a vacant lot there....or sleep on a park bench....than there is living where I live now.....

It is funny now that the dems have changed the bill to address GOP concerns the GOP are still voting against it. It is clear that the GOP have taken an obstructionist stance in politics. The best way to deal with obstructionists is to vote them out.

I have not updated my profile but I live in North Carolina now. I moved for a number of reasons including the cost of living. When I was doing research on various places, I was intrigued by the wide difference in the cost of living between the various states.

Again the data you reference requires more analysis prior to reaching accurate conclusions. Certainly the national poverty level is an interesting number, but it is more or less an average. I am certain that what is hardly livable in Ventura County, California would be a good standard of living in Mississippi.

Also, don't misinterpret my position. If people in a state are sending money to Washington to support a state program, then Washington sends the money back, at the very least less will come back to the state just to cover the Federal overhead. That is wasteful. If a state needs to be subsidized for some reason, call it what it is. Otherwise national issues are national issues. Health, education and welfare of children is a national issue in my opinion. Every child in this country should have food, clothing, shelter, education, medical, and a responsible and caring guardian or parent(s). I have no sympathy for adults who have made poor choices unless they are disabled or a senior citizen. My view is not complicated.

They have not changed the things that are the most problematic. The program will still be a mess relative to what could be done. Is it your opinion that the bill is as good as it could be? Do you this this approach is the best approach to making sure children have health care coverage?

The GOP are not voicing honest concerns they are making things up about the bill and then using that to vote against it. The republicans are obstructionists preventing the congress from doing anything so they can say congress couldn't get anything done.