Gee, what a surprise. Bush & Co. friends can’t make money off of social programs the way they can with a war. Fight potential terrorists or make America a country worth living in again? Tough choice, that. Teenagers see hypocrisy and the corruption of morals starting at the WH on down and feel disconnected from a worthwhile future. Unable to get financially viable jobs, drugs and crime seem reasonable alternatives, and writing graffiti on walls of houses they can never afford to own is OK. I’m glad I never had kids.
Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War
The Democratic leadership in Congress is set to pass a host of domestic funding bills that would exceed Bush’s request by $22 billion. The extra funding would help go towards veterans health care, infrastructure improvements, education, and other domestic priorities.
Speaking to business leaders at a White House event this morning, Bush railed against the relatively modest increase in spending, arguing that $22 billion is “a lot of money”:
“Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies.”
What is so sad for us is Bush can’t see the irony in his statement.
Violent Crime, a Sticky Issue for White House, Shows Steeper Rise
Violent crime in the United States rose more than previously believed in 2006, continuing the most significant increase in more than a decade, according to an FBI report released yesterday.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program found that robberies surged by 7.2 percent and homicides rose 1.8 percent from 2005 to 2006. Violent crime overall rose 1.9 percent, substantially more than an increase of 1.3 percent estimated in a preliminary FBI report in June.
The jump was the second in two years, following a 2.3 percent rise in 2005. Taken together, the two years represent the first steady increase in violent crime since 1993, FBI records show.
The uptick presents a significant political challenge for the Bush administration, which has faced growing criticism from congressional Democrats, big-city mayors and police chiefs for presiding over cuts in federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies over the past six years.
32- MikeN
Do you know anything about what you are talking about?
The bill adds medical coverage to ‘legal’ immigrants children (as in green card holders) after 5 years in the country. There is NO provision for illegal immigrants anywhere in the bill, you f’ing liar.
Let’s call it what it is: if Bush vetoes the bill, it will be the “Insurance company protection veto”, nothing more.
I’ll be jumping for joy if he actually vetoes the bill and the congress does not override the veto… it will be the stake through the hart of whatever credibility there is left for the ridiculous “compassionate conservative” term, and will just open the door for real reform after the kind of people that you support get swept out of power. And if he does not veto the bill, the right thing will be done. In either case, moral people win big or bigger.
#29 Sorry MXPWR03, you are entirely correct. That should read “half of U.S. discretionary government spending”. Still, far more than we need to defend the United States, and by The United States, I don’t mean defend “The overseas interests of the few and powerful”, I mean literally the United States.
p.s. It isn’t nice to call names. Didn’t your momma teach you better?
Can I ask a question…
HOW much of the money being spent on the WAR, is GOING to corps…
contractors, repair of trucks, and material goods, replacement goods, and so forth??
Anyone got the numbers??
At least two comments talked about health care for children, What about the parents? Why do these people think only children need health care. Sick parents do not do healthy children any good. Also we do not need universal health insurance we need health CARE. Anyone who has had to deal with insurance the last five years knows what a joke it has become.
Gee, Uncle Dave, we’re glad you don’t reproduce, also.
Awake, there is a change in the required verification for states to perform on enrollees. The fact is, if this bill passes it will be easier for illegal immigrants to fraudulently acquire health benefits. No doubt the sponsors will have some sort of excuse like they were making it easier for peoiple to sign up, but you and I both know the real reason is to help illegal immigrants.
I wasn’t aware that legal immigrants had been given benefits as well under this bill.
#29, chcknhwk03
Nope. Sorry, wrong again. That is what happens when you play fast and loose with statistics. So how’s boot camp treating you? Ya like the bald / fuzzy doo?
The US spends 47% of all the military spending in the world.
The US spends more that the next 14 countries combines spend on military.
The US spends more than 50% of discretionary spending on defense.
An unknown amount of money is spent on military and defense that is accounted for elsewhere, research, veterans and health care, Iraq and Afghanistan, and intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
#39, MikeN,
What a bullcrap argument. Should we stop building roads because an “illegal” might drive on it? Or prevent someone from opening a store because an “illegal” might buy something? Or have a Social Security number because an “illegal” might forge or steal one to get a job?
#40 – You’re such a child. I corrected a false statement, which was military spending is equal to 50% of GDP. From the article you posted the figure is: “As percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 3.7% on military.” I guessed off the top of my head and current figures are closer to the 4% mark.
Tikiloungelizard don’t take it personally, it is called “Blogistan” for a reason, plus the 50% GDP statement was a little outrageous, not knowing the true intent of discretionary spending.
Well, no, I wasn’t suggesting they shut down the program because illegals might take advantage. I’m suggesting you don’t pass the current changes which make it easier for illegals to partake of the program. Regardless of the new eligibility rules they pass, they don’t have to change the verification requirements. You basically have 4 possibilities, eliminate the program entirely, so no one gets benefits, keep things as they are, increase the eligibility, but keep the verification procedures the same, or the current bill which increases eligibility and tacitly allows illegals. I gather most people on this forum would prefer the third option.