Bush Vetos Insurance Expansion Bill

[JLB]

no link yet

[JLB]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.

Bush quietly exercised the veto at 10 a.m. before leaving the White House for a trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss the federal budget and taxes.

Congress sent the legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to the White House on Tuesday.

"It is our hope and the will of the American people that the president will sign the bill into law on behalf of the future. It is right for no less than 10 million reasons -- our children," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.

[Crinoline]

Wow, Bush does something right. I guess somebody showed him the Constitution recently.

[nehemiah]

:rofl:

nehemiah loves it.

either the republicans override the veto or they hate the children.

thank you, king george - for being a complete poptart. i owes ya one, buddy.

[nehemiah]

"There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?" Options rotated

Support 72%
Oppose 25%
Unsure 3%
http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

[slowpokemcgee]

More insurance for children....Smokes more expensive....seems like a win/win to me. I don't smoke though so I obviously am unaffected.

[Green Lantern]

Bush, who has threatened to veto 9 of 12 annual appropriations bills, wants the GOP to be seen as the party of fiscal disciplinarians. Democrats, however, say the billions spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf the far smaller increases they want in domestic programs.

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


United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)[2]
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.6 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.1 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2001 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[Sparx]

We're spending money over there so we don't have to spend it over here.

[Green Lantern]

We're spending money over there so we don't have to spend it over here.

Bush's proposed budgets don't include military expenditures associated with combat operations.

[JLB]

Bush's proposed budgets don't include military expenditures associated with combat operations.

this is true.

[Green Lantern]

this is true.

So he proposes fiscal responsibility for Democrats when his proposed budgets, without covering the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, are more than $1 Trillion than Clinton's.

It sounds like he wants fiscal preference for his programs, not fiscal responsibility.

[JLB]

So he proposes fiscal responsibility for Democrats when his proposed budgets, without covering the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, are more than $1 Trillion than Clinton's.

It sounds like he wants fiscal preference for his programs, not fiscal responsibility.

he's out there isn't he?

[Green Lantern]

he's out there isn't he?

I bet Uppy and the rest of the base will be parroting that Republicans are still fighting against the tax-and-spend Liberals so, no, I don't think he is out there.

For some people, if he says it, it is true.

[Sparx]

For some people, if he says it, it is true.

I believe those people are called "ass-holes".

[JLB]

I bet Uppy and the rest of the base will be parroting that Republicans are still fighting against the tax-and-spend Liberals so, no, I don't think he is out there.

For some people, if he says it, it is true.

why won't the democrats bring the overturn vote forward immediately?

why wait till October 18th to introduce it?