Why does President Bush hate America’s children?

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill renewing and expanding the SCHIP program which provides health insurance to millions of American children who wouldn’t have it otherwise. The bill which was just recently passed expands coverage to 10 million kids, a mere 4 million more than previously, but Bush claims it contains “excessive spending” so he plans to veto it. This from the man who just asked for an additional $190 billion for his little war in Iraq on top of the $450 billion we’ve already spent.

Let’s put these two costs into perspective here:


Image credit: AFL-CIO Weblog

Just over a month’s worth of the money we’re spending in Iraq would fund all 10 million kids under the new SCHIP program. In comparison that’s one hell of a bargain, but that would mean helping out Americans who can’t help themselves and it does nothing to put that money into the pockets of Big Insurance Companies or the Military-Industrial Conglomerates which are such big contributers to the Republican campaign coffers.

Michael Brush writes, “CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.” Additionally, “The CEOs made an average of $12.4 million a year, easily more than the average corporate chief. Since the start of the war, CEOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics, Halliburton and Oshkosh Truck have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.”

President Bush’s stance seems quite clear: Fuck the kids. If they want to be healthy they should be born to rich Republican parents.

15 thoughts on “Why does President Bush hate America’s children?

  1. The only people that are provided Health Care under the Constitution are this nations prison population. Not only do they consume some 85 Billion in keeping them locked up, But between 3 and 4 Billion is spent on keeping them healthy. California’s 3 strike laws often to not serve the purpose of keeping the public interest.

    Yes the war sucks…We should not have gone to start with, but we are there. And if we leave now, will we just deal with more of it’s aftermath later ?

    So what is the answer ?

    I have suggestions, but most people find them either extreamly offensive, inhumane or possibly even insane. So maybe I’ll write about them later. Maybe not…

  2. Maybe an army could be made from prisoners – if they get killed/ kill each other or even escape we’d have more prison vacancies and perhaps less burden on infrastructure, also the murderers amongst them would have fewer inhibitions to killing. There would be ways to provide them guns without risking the gurads – I’m thinking load them into a prison chinook that drops guns from the cieling after they’ve had their orders (by trap door), then parachuting them into enemy teritory via a trap door beneath.

    It could be part of the deal when someone commits an offense, and it beats conscripting innocents

  3. Because it’s another form of “forced charity”. If I wanted to help poor kids I would donate money on my own. The last thing I want to do is give my money away to people who didn’t earn it.

    People shouldn’t breed if they can’t afford basic care for their children.

  4. People shouldn’t live in New Orleans if they can’t pay for Hurricane damage.

    People shouldn’t be victims of crime if they can’t pay for the police investigation.

  5. I also agree.

    If you choose to live in a place where a natural disaster is likely, it’s your responsibility to be knowledgeable about the possible events and be prepared for them.

    What happened to the good ‘ol days when a victim or relatives could gather a group of friends and take care of justice vigilante style?

  6. What happened to the good ‘ol days when a victim or relatives could gather a group of friends and take care of justice vigilante style?

    I guess that sounds alright until they’re hanging you.

  7. Moloch: People shouldn’t breed if they can’t afford basic care for their children.

    You have a point

    I also don’t like it when things are forced – but it’s sometimes the only way things are going to happen given the situation. I don’t like the idea people should have to work at all, but economics is used to force them because otherwise it wouldn’t happen.

    Children don’t have the same oppertunities to work and I feel that even if they were charged, it should at least scale with their earnings because healthcare isn’t something you can plan for, it’s needed at inoppertune times that can’t be planned for and can affect someone disproportionately through no fault of their own. If it were something you could plan to buy to feel above average, then it’d be a luxury, but it’s not

  8. Moloch: If you choose to live in a place where a natural disaster is likely, it’s your responsibility to be knowledgeable about the possible events and be prepared for them. 

    OK – I’m traveling and just woke up, so imagine my surprise to find that I agree with Moloch’s argument, at least when you put it in this form: If you live in the US, it’s your responsibility to be knowledgeable about the possibility that you might be asked or required to support your neighbors in some way, and be prepared to do so. 

    I don’t see SCHIP as any different than investing taxes for public education.  The beneficiaries in both cases may be able to afford private coverage (or private schools) – but that’s not the real issue.  Instead, the question we need to ask is, what’s the relative cost to society of paying up front to provide health coverage (or education) for kids, regardless of whether their parents could otherwise afford it, than waiting to pay for the logical consequences that arise from having a larger slice of the population grow to adulthood with the burden of a lifetime of untreated illnesses (or undereducation)?

    From a purely selfish position of wanting to pay fewer tax dollars throughout my life, I’d rather pay a little more now to educate and provide coverage to more kids (and potentially benefit some on the fringe who might be able to afford a private option) than support those same kide who survive to have grown into stupid and sick adults with stupid and sick kids of their own.

    Webs: We already know Bush lied which is an impeachable offense. So what the fuck is everyone waiting for?

    Jan, 2009.

  9. Still – why wait till then? What would the alternative be? (better/worse both possible). A lot of events could happen in those last months that could affect a lot of people and maybe we’d be better off w/o him, if it could be done

  10. The only people that are provided Health Care under the Constitution are this nations prison population. Not only do they consume some 85 Billion in keeping them locked up, But between 3 and 4 Billion is spent on keeping them healthy. California’s 3 strike laws often to not serve the purpose of keeping the public interest.

    I’m all for regulating marijuana sales (tax it like cigarettes!), and possibly even “hard” drugs, but anyone in high crime areas (where the courts are backlogged and the jails and prisons overloaded) with 3 actual convictions, has almost certainly been arrested more than 30 times.  If we look at the likelihood of arrest for most crimes, a criminal probably commits an offense at least a half dozen times before he gets caught.

    We don’t have a 3 strikes law in IL, but I could certainly get behind one for felonies.  Pretty much anyone with 3 felony convictions is a bad dude you don’t walking the streets.  Misdemeanors, on the other hand, may simply indicate someone who’s a fuck-up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.