A Disturbing Absence

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paulccullen @ Oct 7 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]522427[/snapback]</div>

NPR's "Wait, Wait, don't tell me" wasn't.

They referred to it as "No Child Left Insured."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paulccullen @ Oct 7 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]522427[/snapback]</div>

He did make an interesting analogy. Bush has gone from sophisticated crook like Nixon, to comically absurd, like Mr. Burns or Dr. Evil.

Let's review: Bush vetoed legislation that will provide medical care to children funded by a cigarrette tax.

Then Trent Lott argued this was nonsense because people would STOP smoking and then there would not be any revenues to pay for the program.

You can not write better comedy than this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 7 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]522567[/snapback]</div>

I'd still like to see a $5/pack tax on cigarettes (and equivalent on other tobacco products) going into general revenue, and then health care funded from general revenue.

But I think we agree on substance, and are only quibbling about our political fantasies: mine are more extreme. My favorite lapel pin said: "BE REALISTIC. DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE!"

 

I don't get why Republicans are against taxing tobacco to fund this bill.

Is it because all social levels, including the poor, middle class and rich smoke and so would be equally taxed?

Is it because too many Republicans smoke?

Is it because too many tobacco companies are owned by Republicans and contribute to Republican campaign funds, thus any drop in sales hurts revenue and thus reduces contributions?

My feeling is that if you can't get them to quit tobacco any other way, tax them until they can't afford to buy it anymore. And when that happens you find another revenue source for children's health insurance. In the mean time....veto his a$$.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Oct 7 2007, 09:55 PM) [snapback]522585[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking more along the lines of Snidely Whiplash.

 

i was pretty stunned by this veto as well... i can't think of a better way to fund children's healthcare than through a tax on something that's a strict "want" item that should be discouraged anyway.

oh wait... [cough] big tobacco won't have that.

on cost of living, in case you haven't noticed health insurance is insanely expensive. at least it is for us. now if we had children and had to deal with all those expenses too? holy crap, we'd be working poor as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 7 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]522460[/snapback]</div>

Didn't the late Arthur Schlesinger just say in his recently released book that Bush was "a very petty man"?

Reminds me of the reason Hitler decided to bomb London. Evidently, early in the war, the English dropped a few inconsequential bombs on Berlin. IIRC, they caused little damage and no casualties, but Hitler was so outraged by the act that he diverted valuable resources to carry out the London Blitz. Although there were certainly civilian casualties, militarily, the value of Germany bombing London was zero. It was the first of Hitler's many petty, knee-jerk decisions in WWII which ultimately resulted in the complete destruction of the German state.

Similiarly, it's been said that the reason Bush invaded Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, but was in retaliation for Saddam Hussein plotting to assasinate his father, George H.W. Bush, like Sonny Corleone retaliating for the assasination attempt on Don Corleone in The Godfather. Makes perfect sense, since the Bush administration is a criminal organization in every sense of the term.

Now, with Bush's seemingly inexplicable veto, I get the feeling that, given Bush's vindictiveness, his actions are now predicated on 'punishing' the GOP for most (if not all) of the candidates distancing themselves from him as much as they can on the upcoming election's campaign trail. IOW, he wants the GOP to go down in flames in the next election as payback for the way his own party is now treating him.

That'll show 'em...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 7 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]522602[/snapback]</div>

Historically, the tobacco-producing states voted Democratic, and the Democrats supported Big Tobacco. As the South has crossed the line and now supports the Republicans, Republicans have abandoned their former hostility towards tobacco, and now support your right to inflict smoke on everyone around you without being taxed for it.

Snidely Whiplash is not nearly evil enough to be compared to Bush. I think Iago would be a better comparison.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 7 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]522648[/snapback]</div>

The Brits, the Germans, and the Americans have always held the brutal and incorrect belief that if you inflict sufficient suffering on civilians, they will turn against their government. In fact, civilians almost always support their government, no matter how bad it's been, when a foreign power starts targeting them (the civilians). The German Blitz against London; the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities; the massacres of Vietnamese villages by Americans; all had the intended purpose of convincing civilians that their government could not protect them and that therefore they should turn against their government. In each case, the policy backfired, causing the populace to support their government with renewed determination. But it shows what barbarous criminals national leaders are, whether their nations be fascist or democratic.

It should come as no surprise that Bush, who is willing to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, the majority of them civilians, is also willing to cause the deaths of countless American children by denying them adequate health care.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 7 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]522648[/snapback]</div>

This is a very interesting theory. The only argument I can think of against it is that Bust is too stupid to reason beyond "Hungry: want banana."

 

It would seem rediculous that in the shadow of the World Trade Centre attacks anyone could think an attack against civilians would do anything but galvanise the population and the government against the common agressor. Hitler may not have gained militarily from bombing London after the fire bombing of Dresden but it would have been with the support of the German people.

Only when governments get past the stone-age urge to take revenge against an attacker in the form of more violence will there be peace on this earth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 8 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]522862[/snapback]</div>

Iago had brains and cunning.

Bush doesn't even have Rove anymore.

 

double post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 8 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]522875[/snapback]</div>

Actually, during the interwar period there it was thought that a prolonged bombing campaign would produce post-traumatic stress (though it wasn't known by that name) in civilian populations much like it did in many of the participants of WWI. Prior to the Blitz the Battle of Britain was aimed at establishing air superiority over England so that the Wehrmacht could invade GB (Operation Sea lion). The Luftwaffe's high casualties during daylight raids forced them to shift to night bombing and it's necessary decrease in bombing accuracy (which was pretty poor throughout WWII). The hope was to force the Brits into seeking an armistice be terrorizing and demoralizing the population. We know the result.

The Brits returned in kind in 1943 by creating the first firestorm in Hamburg. The British raids killed far more civilians and they weren't shy about it. They deliberately targeted civilian areas that were easy for their pathfinders to identify and mark for the following waves of bombers. The US did not participate in these night time raids, though the USAAF did bomb military targets during daylight during the same time that the British night time raids were occurring.

I agree though. People in general, and politicians in particular, are poor students of history. Some day perhaps we'll get beyond this nonsense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 8 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]522897[/snapback]</div>

Good point. I was thinking of Iago's pure evil and his willingness to inflict suffering on the innocent. But you are right. There may not be a figure in all of history or literature stupid enough to serve as an analogy to Bush.

 

It will be interesting to see how history judges this timeperiod.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 8 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]522875[/snapback]</div>

You would think so - seems like the 9/11 has energized the anti-American crowd, the Liberal Democrats, etc - its sad to see that they seem to paraphrase everything OBL says - but that is how it goes. They are what is being referred to as "neo-communists" nowadays.

Stone age "governments" are out greatest threat today - witness Iran, al-Qaeda, Syria, etc.

Revenge has its place - i look at it as deterrence - perhaps we stand a better chance if our enemies feared us and what would happen to them if they attacked us. they do in large part, hence irans race towards nukes which effectively eliminates our other advantages. again, there are those here that want to see that happen for whatever reason.

 

Just a remotely on-topic reminder. If you'd like to tell your representatives that you don't approve of Bush's veto and want them to work to override, you can send them letters at:
Children's Health: Overturn the Veto (a Democratic Party website)

 

Wow, this topic went a ways since my last post. I love you liberals. A criminal administration? The dems investigate everything from 2 words in a monologue to a floater in the oval office toilet and they have found absolutely ZERO convictions of any crime against GWB.

I pay for the insurance for me, my wife, and my son. Remind me why I have to pay for your child's insurance. I don't smoke, but the tax will shift to regular taxpayers if this veto gets overridden.

 

What does all this have to do with the Prius?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Oct 14 2007, 01:35 AM) [snapback]525364[/snapback]</div>

Because you already pay for their emergency room visits, which are more expensive.

Wouldn't you rather save some money and pay for insurance instead?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Oct 13 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]525364[/snapback]</div>

Because the worse life gets for the working poor, the more they get squeezed between minimum wage and the cost of living, the closer they get to being forced to choose between honest work or crime just to put food on the table, the worse everyday life will get for the rest of us.