Oh, he is such a heartless President, he would never veto a bill that would assist child health care without a legitimate reason, or would he. Come on, this is such a biased title, DrNothing. Are you trying to just stir the pot or are you that much a "W"-hater? He did it very quietly, likely since he knew the backlash he would have received from the main stream media. They have a tendency to pick and choose what "facts" they decide to use, that way they get the reaction they want. Since his ratings are down they wouldn't want to post up an article to change that, would they?

I put it up as more of a larf/comment on how everyone, even the Republicans seem to be getting on the Bush-bashing bandwagon, let alone on how the media sensationalizes/distorts everything. Of course he doesn't hate children. I'm just being silly here. ;p

Bush bashing?

These are facts. He vetoed a bill that would provide health care for poor children. The main reason? It would be too costly.

Also a fact: one weeks funding for his Iraq
adventure would fund health care for 800,000
children for a year.

Seems the only defense the Republicans have is to shout "Bush Bashing" every time the "Great Decider" is called on his stupidity.

When I say "Bush Bashing", I'm suggesting that everyone's speaking ill of him. Now, this does NOT imply they're at all WRONG...

The SCHIP program (State Children's Health Insurance Program, aimed at helping poor children) has been on the books for the last ten years, and is now up for renewal. The bill sent to the President by the Democrats greatly enlarges the scope of the program, qualifying "children" up to 28 years old and families making up to $80,000 a year.

THAT is why it was vetoed by the President.

Am I the only one who thinks that this bill was changed in such as way as to purposely make the President look bad? Allow candidates to grandstand, allow the media to run a bunch of really negative (and misleading) stories, and once again change the subject back to Bush.

The defense to that is, of course, "Well it was bi-partisan." However, do note that even in this particular report, they make a point to say that many of the Republicans who voted for it, were up for a "tough re-election" next year. So, it appears to be political posturing on their part too. Additionally, there were a number of Democrats who didn't vote for the bill either... so there were defections on both sides.

IMO, I think this was just a bunch of political "gotcha" designed to make one party look bad... not to actually advance any particular legislation on its actual merit.

As the story points out, it was bi-partisan...

He's such a pompus git. I hope you Americans vote another president next election.

Arnold Schwarzenegger FTW!

Can you provide a link or page to that information? Anything I have searched does not have the numbers you have provided.

The thumbnail is hilarious.

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070921-6.html

That's the white-house spin on it. The federal poverty level is around 20,000. Newyork is grandfathered in at 400%. New Jersey is grandfathered in at 350%.

Got alot of 'reading between the lines' to figure out what's going on here though. It doesn't seem as cut and dry as 'Bush vetoes kids bill.'

He did propose to increase funding by 5 Billion, but opposed the increase by 35 and 50 billion.

Something is amiss in Washington methinks.

I will have to do more research on this, but I will say that the cost of living is different in each state. It would be like the goverment to pull a number of say 80G from New york and say we are supporting kids of parents who earn that much.

My best bud lives in San Fran and her house was a near million dollar home there, but would be considered a simple ranch here in Ohio, for 120g.

So an Ohioian like myself would think that 80g is outrageous, when in fact, it barely makes ends meet.

I don't trust the spin from the White house site itself...I shall be back, though!!

I agree that the White House likely spins stuff in their direction but the main stream media is spinning equally (or more) in the other direction. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a legit place to find non-spun news that just gives facts and not opinion.

As long as cortexes are involved, that's likely not to ever happen...

Me either, Kiddo.