No Money for Our Kids, But More Money for War

[Nbadan]

Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart....inner-city schools are crumbling....no money to fund R/D for growing companies....hospital emergency rooms filled beyond capacity....price of gas and other commodities going through the roof....forget all that, Dubya needs another $46 billion for his war....


WASHINGTON - President Bush will ask Congress for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs, The Associated Press has learned.

The figure, which Bush was expected to announce later Monday at the White House, brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.

The figures were disclosed by congressional officials briefed on the request this morning and who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made.

The Iraq war, now in its fifth year, already has cost more than $455 billion, with stepped-up military operations running about $12 billion a month. The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,830 members of the U.S. military and more than 73,000 Iraqi civilians.

Yahooooo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_war_spending)


Yet, Hitlary is the one who 'will take our country apart' if she is elected...

:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart....inner-city schools are crumbling....no money to fund R/D for growing companies....hospital emergency rooms filled beyond capacity....price of gas and other commodities going through the roof....forget all that, Dubya needs another $46 billion for his war....
Which bills, providing funding for these needs, did the president veto?

When has congress failed to provide military funding requested by the president?

Thought so.

I also notice you don't talk about the controversial bill referenced in your subject line. How come?

Could it be that the president wanted to add 20 Billion to that program but wouldn't allow the extra 15 billion Congress wanted to add for adults and upper middle income families? Probably.


Yet, Hitlary is the one who 'will take our country apart' if she is elected...
Yep.

[TDMVPDPOY]

htf does it cost 12billion a month to run an army in iraq?

thats like one year of australias GDP with only 17million population

theres certainly wrong with the funneling of the proceeds..

[101A]

htf does it cost 12billion a month to run an army in iraq?

thats like one year of australias GDP with only 17million population

theres certainly wrong with the funneling of the proceeds..That's how the government rolls.

Go ahead, give 'em healthcare too. See how that works out.

[Nbadan]

Could it be that the president wanted to add 20 Billion to that program but wouldn't allow the extra 15 billion Congress wanted to add for adults and upper middle income families? Probably.

Sounds like something that should have been ironed out in Committee - assuming it's true...from what I know of the program it only covers kids 18 and under....a $62K limit for a family of 4 may seem like a lot of money to some. but that barely keeps the rent paid and the lights on in some parts of the U.S....it's all about context...

[Yonivore]

Sounds like something that should have been ironed out in Committee - assuming it's true...from what I know of the program it only covers kids 18 and under....a $62K limit for a family of 4 may seem like a lot of money to some. but that barely keeps the rent paid and the lights on in some parts of the U.S....it's all about context...
You've heard wrong.

The president was willing to sign a law that would have increased spending by 20 billion dollars over the previous year. What caused the veto is that Democrats wanted 35 billion more and were expanding the program to include upper-middle class and adults.

I believe the age limit, in the Democrat version, was 25 and the income limit was $82,000.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You've heard wrong.

The additional 15 Billion wanted by Democrats was to provide coverage for adults, up to 25, and family incomes up to $82,000.


Yoni did you realize that 82,000 was specifically for the state NY? let me guess your right wing blogs never explained that did they? kind of defeats the argument if that were the case huh?



Lowey joins effort to stop Administration from limiting children’s health insurance

Port Chester – Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland) Wednesday announced that she will lead the effort to stop the Bush Administration from undermining the efforts of New York to provide children with healthcare.

“SCHIP is one of the most successful federal programs in existence,” said Lowey. “Given that 47 million Americans lack health insurance, including nine million children, it simply makes no sense that the Administration would go out of its way to prevent more children from having access to health care.”

Last week, the Administration issued new requirements that states must meet in order to provide health insurance to children in families earning more than 250 percent of the federal poverty rate.

New York is currently seeking a waiver to make children in families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty rate ($82,600 per year for a family of four) eligible for coverage, due to the high cost of living in the state.

Previously, the Administration promised to veto legislation passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate to provide coverage for five million children who are eligible for, but not currently enrolled in, SCHIP.

In New York, over 440,000 children did not have health insurance in 2005. That includes over 15,000 from Westchester County and over 8,300 from Rockland County.

“The Administration’s decision to roll back health insurance for children is in direct opposition to Congressional efforts to expand access to health care,” said Westchester Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Lipsman. “The health of Westchester’s children will be impacted by the decision to restrict access to affordable care.”

you mean bush wasn't being completely honest when he used this example to veto the bill? where's ray?

[Yonivore]

Yoni did you realize that 82,000 was specifically for the state NY? let me guess your right wing blogs never explained that did they? kind of defeats the argument if that were the case huh?

you mean bush wasn't being completely honest when he used this example to veto the bill? where's ray?
It's still $82,000.

Why does it cost so much to live in New York? Taxes to pay for all the liberal handout programs.

Set a national level and let the state's make up the differences caused by their own cost of living problems.

The fact remains, President Bush proposed a $20 billion dollar increase in the SCHIP program. Democrats tried to make him out to be a child-hater because he wouldn't sign a bill that excessively inflated the cost of the program and included people that shouldn't be subject to a CHILDREN'S health insurance program for POOR people.

[td4mvp21]

Killing people in war makes far more sense that providing healthcare for the children of America :rolleyes.

[Yonivore]

“The Administration’s decision to roll back health insurance for children is in direct opposition to Congressional efforts to expand access to health care,” said Westchester Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Lipsman. “The health of Westchester’s children will be impacted by the decision to restrict access to affordable care.”
Since when is a $20 billion dollar increase a rollback?

Who's being disingenuous?

[Yonivore]

Killing people in war makes far more sense that providing healthcare for the children of America :rolleyes.
Especially since providing for the common defense is a constitutional obligation of the president's and providing health insurance isn't.

[ChumpDumper]

It's still $82,000.No, that amount isn't and wasn't in the bill. Try $61,500.

That would be not lying.

[ChumpDumper]

Especially since providing for the common defense is a constitutional obligation of the president's and providing health insurance isn't.Isn't the next line in the Constitution "promote the general welfare"?

[Oh, Gee!!]

we should strap our poor, sick kids to missles. that would kill two birds with one stone

[PixelPusher]

Isn't the next line in the Constitution "promote the general welfare"?
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/xlarge/08_30_05(15-13-06)_christy_constitution_xl.jpg
Those pinko-commie bastards!

[Wild Cobra]

You've heard wrong.

The president was willing to sign a law that would have increased spending by 20 billion dollars over the previous year. What caused the veto is that Democrats wanted 35 billion more and were expanding the program to include upper-middle class and adults.

I believe the age limit, in the Democrat version, was 25 and the income limit was $82,000.
This is true as I understand it.

The situation is clear to me. This is a democrat plot to make president Bush look bad. They didn't want to help the kids, they want to hold the kids hostage. If they really wanted to do something for the kids, they would have voted on a bill that authorized the now expired levels. This would have passed. If the democrats really cared, that's what they would have done. They could have made the program to the same age as before, and increased from 200% to 250% of the poverty line and president Bush would likely have signed it.

The problem is, when you get past the 250% point, you are now covering people an income class of people who many of which have employer paid insurances. To make a government program available now makes it profitable for the employer to stop providing health insurance, placing even more burden on us tax payers. Same thing with people who pay for dependant plans with their employer. It entices them to switch to the free health care.

Don't we want to increase private health care plans, not decrease them?

How does that line go?

"If you think it's expensive now, just wait until it's free!"

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't the next line in the Constitution "promote the general welfare"?
'Promote the general welfare' doesn't mean what it immediately sounds like. 'Promote' is different than 'provide' which is specifically stated “provide for the common defense!”

Get a 19th century or older dictionary and look up a few key words.

[Yonivore]

You promote a cause.

You provide a service.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah, schools in the US are closing but new ones are opening in Iraq. Go figure.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, schools in the US are closing but new ones are opening in Iraq. Go figure.
Yeah, go figure.

[Nbadan]

The Ten Types Of Republicans (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ELfiVTTb5Jw)

[Nbadan]

It's a 'your money moment'...


WASHINGTON — The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday.

A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.

The new estimate also includes President Bush's request Monday for another $46 billion in war funding, said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., budget committee chairman, who provided the CBO's new numbers to USA TODAY.

Assuming that Iraq accounts for about 80% of that total, the Iraq war would cost $1.9 trillion, including $564 million in interest, said Thomas Kahn, Spratt's staff director. The committee holds a hearing on war costs this morning.

"The number is so big, it boggles the mind," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.htm)

The War In Iraq Costs SO FAR...

$456,172,238,408

Instead, we could have insured
273,157,028
children for one year.

Instead, we could have built
4,107,403
additional housing units.


Instead, we could have hired
7,905,524
additional public school teachers for one year.

Instead, we could have paid for
60,420,205
children to attend a year of Head Start.


Instead, we could have provided
22,114,244
students four-year scholarships at public universities.

SO FAR, and the counter is running with $4,100 for every American household;
$1,500 for every American;
$3,400 for every taxpayer;
$11 million per hour and;
$275 million per day.

[Holt's Cat]

How about no war and no welfare for the middle class? I could go for that.

[PixelPusher]

How about no war and no welfare for the middle class? I could go for that.
The middle class is dwindling every day...problem (eventually) solved.

[Yonivore]

How about no war and no welfare for the middle class? I could go for that.
I could go for the no welfare for anyone but, as for war, that's kind of up to our enemies.

[JoeChalupa]

Or a war president.