Bush Uses Obstructionism to Prove He Is "Relevant"

[Brassmask]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/17/bush-i-veto-bills-to-ensure-that-i-am-relevant/

Feel that?  That's American Pride f'ing with you...

Bush: I veto bills to ?ensure that I am relevant.?Today in his press conference, President Bush attempted to justify his recent veto of an SCHIP expansion by explaining that he needs to issue vetoes in order to prove to people that he?s still the Decider:

That?s why the president has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation, and the president can then use the veto to make sure he?s a part of the process. And that?s what I fully intend to do. I?m going to make sure. And that?s why when I tell you I?m going to sprint to the finish, and finish this job strong, that?s one way to ensure that I am relevant. That?s one way to ensure that I?m in the process. And I intend to use the veto.

[sirs]

LOL

A) Obstructionism has been perfected by the Dems and on grand display anytime a GOP president nominates anyone remotely conservative to a high ranking judicial position

B) Bush's proposal INCREASED the current schips program of I believe 20%.  So the idea that he's cutting the program, simply because he doesn't agree to increase it by 300%, is more presentation of BDS induced bovine excrement, trying to be passed as criticism

[Lanya]

Brass, are you serious? THis is what the Leader of the Free World sounds like?  God Help us.

[Plane]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

Brass, are you serious? THis is what the Leader of the Free World sounds like?  God Help us.

You would beleive a cut and paste from thinkprogress?

[Plane]

Dear Editor: Contrary to some reports, President Bush has for months voiced strong support for a 20-percent funding increase for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which funds the ALLKids and ALLKids Plus programs in Alabama. But the president cannot support turning a program for poor children into an entitlement for middle-income families, some with incomes up to $83,000 a year.

That's what the SCHIP bill passed by Congress would do. It would raise taxes on working Americans, more than double SCHIP spending, and continue the trend toward using SCHIP to cover adults instead of children. Half a dozen states already spend more SCHIP money on adults than on children. Thankfully, Alabama is not one of them.

Many of the families Congress would add to SCHIP already have private insurance. Why would we want to replace private health insurance with public assistance? It makes more sense to focus our limited resources on enrolling the already eligible Alabama kids who aren't signed up.

President Bush knows that health insurance is a critical challenge for American families. Besides renewing SCHIP, he also wants to give every family a $15,000 tax break to buy insurance. According to the Levin Group, the President's overall health access proposal would mean nearly 20 million more Americans with health insurance. Let's do both. Let's refocus SCHIP to help poor kids first and then make health care more affordable for everyone.

Chris Downing

Regional Director, U.S. Deptartment of Health and Human Services

Atlanta


http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20071017/NEWS/710170331/-1/NEWS03

[Lanya]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

Brass, are you serious? THis is what the Leader of the Free World sounds like?  God Help us.

You would beleive a cut and paste from thinkprogress?

Yes, I would.  Same lines are in the quotes from the WHite House.
"..........that's one way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to sure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."................

[BT]

Apparently rumors of his lameduckieness is premature. He vetoed a bad bill. The dems need to get their act together and pass a bill that shares the burden with all americans instead of sticking it to a minority of citizens.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It isn't a bad bill, it is a good one. It makres a lot more sense to spend my taxes on the neighbors' kids than paying $100,000 to Blackwater to menace Iraqis with their goons.

Refusing to protect the health of children because it might lead to socialized medicine is idiocy.

The faster Juniorbush passes on into total irrelevancy, the better. He will be happy to 'replenish the ol' coffers' with huge donations giving keynote speewches to the International Society of Wealthy Bastards, The Alliance of the Filthy Rich, and Americans for Astronomical Real Estate Prices, and such.

The man was born irrelevant. The Fickle Finger of Fate thrust celebrity upon him. We would all be better off had alcohol, cocaine or a defective jet trainer engine had deprived us of the curse known as Juniorbush somewhere long ago.

They could never have elected Dick Cheney president.

[Amianthus]

It isn't a bad bill, it is a good one. It makres a lot more sense to spend my taxes on the neighbors' kids than paying $100,000 to Blackwater to menace Iraqis with their goons.

Except that the bill gave money to people who already had health insurance, and to adults instead of kids.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Except that the bill gave money to people who already had health insurance, and to adults instead of kids.

This is an unproven mischaracterization.

what people who had insurance?

Which adults?

The Republicans know that once Americans have governmant provided healthcare, they will not be able to take it away, since they can't be elected if they try.

Observe how Juniorbush's attack on Social Security went nowhere, and was followed by the defeat of his annoying party shortly afterwards.;

A two party system might be acceptable, so long as neither party are Republicans. They only serve to monger useless wars, favor their rich buddies and to run up the debt. Borrow and squander is not an acceptable alternative to tax and spend.

[Amianthus]

This is an unproven mischaracterization.

Not according to articles I've read.

[BT]

It isn't a bad bill, it is a good one. It makres a lot more sense to spend my taxes on the neighbors' kids than paying $100,000 to Blackwater to menace Iraqis with their goons.

Didn't know you were a smoker.

A buck a pack tax is how they plan to pay for it. I wouldn't be against it so much f they paid for it with a sales tax.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am all for taxing tobacco. It should result in some revenue and fewer smokers.

I quit in 1986. It is an expensive and useless habit.

Juniorbush most likely opposes it because of the Tobacco Lobby. Not even a dimwit politician will admit to catering to them these days.

[BT]

Perhaps you do not understand. They plan to pay for the 35billion dollar increase by raising taxes on tobaco, while at the same time saying they hope this discourages smoking and thus leaves this unfunded.

What are they thinking? They are thinking it becomes much more palatable if the freight is paid by other people.

We really need to get away from this parasitic approach to funding give away programs.

[Richpo64]

Still smoking BT?

I'm almost six years smoke free myself.