Skip to main content

New WaPo poll:

Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority supports an expansion of a children's health insurance bill the president has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and Congress. Bush's approval rating stands at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls. Congressional approval is even lower: Just 29 percent approve of the job the Congress is doing. That is Congress's lowest approval rating in this poll since November 1995, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, and represents a 14-point drop since Democrats took control last January.

Still, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). And when the two parties are pitted directly against one another, the public broadly favors Democrats to handle Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.

And while the poll shows support for not fully funding Iraq, (deserving of its own post), the polling on SCHIP is crystal clear.

Bush and the Republicans may also be headed for a political setback from the fight over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, even if Congress fails to override Bush's threatened veto, with broad bipartisan support for the new legislation.

More than seven in 10 support the planned $35 billion spending increase, and only 25 percent are opposed. About half of Americans "strongly" support the increased spending; 17 percent are that firmly against the additional money. And the program expansion has majority support across party lines: Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans are in favor.

In fact,

Democrats hold a big edge over Republicans on handling the nation's health-care issues more generally. Overall, 56 percent said they trust Democrats to handle health care, and 26 percent side with the GOP on the issue.

There's more on the SCHIP front, too as Eliot Spitzer and the states up the ante:

New York is joining seven states in legal challenges that will charge the Bush Administration with violating provisions of the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program, Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced Monday.

Oh, and all this has not gone unnoticed in DC. From Roll Call (subscription required), Stu Rothenberg writing:

So the GOP is stuck on SCHIP where it has been on so many issues over the past few years — divided, with a politically crippled president and, now, defending a position of political weakness. No wonder Democrats are gloating.

Poll results are here. And if you don't like the regressive cigarette tax, complain to Charles Grassley and the Senate Republicans who insisted on putting it in. Despite that, the public approves 72-25 (see Q 9).

Update [2007-10-1 19:33:42 by DemFromCT]:: Want to do something about SCHIP? Read this and put some pressure on House Republicans.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:01 PM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  methinks (5+ / 0-)

    it's time we had an election ... get rid of a few of the fake Dems too while we're at it :)

    Avoiding Theocracy at Home and Neo Cons Abroad

    by UniC on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:00:45 PM PDT

    •  what is a fake democrat? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      UniC

      when will the democrats take back the word compassion?

      maybe they cant do it, as the poor have little political power.

      i just heard it on the BBC, hillary has it locked up before a vote is cast. i think thats the 4th time ive heard it is so this week.

      did anyone see mike gravel on the pbs news hour? is he a real democrat?

      " what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil " -- Alan Greenspan

      by carlos oaxaca on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will they ever get it? (7+ / 0-)

    The public backs them not the Repubs.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothing new to say---New Speedway Boogie (Grateful Dead)

    by jhecht on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:00:45 PM PDT

    •  Not only that. (5+ / 0-)

      The public prefers Dems over Repubs and yet gives the Dem Congress historically low marks, principally on account of its handling of the war.

      That's the part Dems are not getting, and it's literally killing people.

      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

      by machopicasso on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:18:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'Amazing, though, isn't it that (0+ / 0-)

      the republican Congress was rated that much higher.  I know Americans are frustrated over the war, but over half of the country didn't give a damn that republican Congresses were rubber stamping Bush and conducting zero oversight? The republicans facilitated all of Bush's assaults on our country and Constitution and Americans still thought they were doing 14% better than this Congress.  Has republican obstructionism won?

  •  Am I a %3'er (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glic, seabos84

    There is broader public agreement, however, on how Congress should approach the war funding issue. Only about a quarter of all adults want Congress to fully fund the administration's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, while two-thirds want the proposed allocation reduced, with 43 percent wanting it reduced sharply. (Three percent say Congress should approve no money at all.)

    Too bad the dems are trying to woo that %25 that want the war to continue fully funded and unabated.  But I guess they are a large constituency than the three percent that I am in who want no money unless there is a real plan for withdrawal.  They might be unprincipled but they do know that 25 is larger than 3 so I guess they are one up on the average republican.

    •  About that 25%. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrangeAnimals

      That 25% is the core of support in Bush's low 33% approval rating. So, it's not like Congressional Dems are going to gain any votes by acquiescing on full funding for the war. Instead, they simply run a risk of alienating voters and losing more votes. So, not only is fully funding the wrong thing to do, it's politically stupid, as well.

      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

      by machopicasso on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:23:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And being ahead (11+ / 0-)

    75-25 is exactly what is going to make Democrats fold and capitulate.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:01:58 PM PDT

  •  Good luck with that Veto Bush (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Glic

    Moron.

  •  Of course people are against war and for kids. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark27

    Ooooh.  Oooooh.  Tax the cancer victims to save kids.   Wait.  Why is this significant?  It's not.  It's an easy play, and it will be vetoed.  Don't get too excited.  Yet.  

    Because everyone has one. Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:08:45 PM PDT

  •  Take some action... (12+ / 0-)

    The DCCC is targeting:

    Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio, Thelma Drake (R-Va.), Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.) Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)

    Call them today.  E-mail them.  Write them a letter. Let them know how you feel. Let them know you'll donate money to whoever runs against them if they don't override the President's veto.

    Health Insurance for America's Children is something that no one can vote against.

    •  Exactly, now the pressure is to go after (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral, HealthProject

      Congressional Republicans and let them know that this is the end game for them and that we'll throw millions against them in the next election if they don't override.  

      Find the most centrist Republicans and give them a wake up call.

      Wayne Gilchrest (MD)  

      Roscoe Bartlett (MD)

      They need to know that this could toss them out in the next election.

      Ninety percent of life is just showing up. Woody Allen
      The other 10% is homework. Anonymous student.

      by captainlaser on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:23:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bartlett is NOT a centrist (0+ / 0-)

         Bartlett's a right-wing asshole. No better than the others.

         I should know. He "represents" my district.

        "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

        by Buzzer on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:38:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said most centrist (0+ / 0-)

          He still is a right wing asshole but you're not going to find 20 left wingers in the Republican caucus.

          I have no doubt he'll vote with Bush until hell freezes over.  But didn't Duck give him a challenge?

          Ninety percent of life is just showing up. Woody Allen
          The other 10% is homework. Anonymous student.

          by captainlaser on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:27:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Duck challenged him... (0+ / 0-)

              ....but didn't really gain much traction. This is a tough district for Dems -- ANY Dem.

              He's trying again. He's firmed up his position on the war, and his name recognition is much better this time around. But this district would vote for Jeffrey Dahmer if he ran on the Republican ticket.
             

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:30:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  He's about as right as they get except for (0+ / 0-)

          renewable energy.  He's got solar collectors on his house in Frederick and has a place in West Virginia that will be going off the grid once they get the windmill working properly.  And has driven a Prius since they first came out.

          Here's his take on SCHIP:

           

          CONGRESS TAKES FIRST STEP TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
          Last night, the House passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs bill. Congressman Bartlett voted against this bill for many reasons principally because it failed to address exclusively the needs of the working poor, increases taxes on the poor, and provides more illegal immigration incentives.
          In 1997, Congressman Bartlett supported the creation of SCHIP to help needy children in low-income families. Congressman Bartlett voted against the latest version of SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) because it lost its focus on providing health care for poor children. In a rush to create a government-run health care system, the Democratic Majority produced a bill that puts poor children at risk and displayed a willingness to tax the working poor to pay for insuring middle class children who are already covered by their parents’ private insurance plans.
          The Democratic bill also includes large tax increases on tobacco products. To increase cigarette taxes to discourage smoking to pay for a health care program, or any government program, is not sound budgeting. Tobacco taxes also fall disproportionately on low-income individuals.
          On another contentious point, providing health care for illegal aliens, this bill looks the other way. It is true that on the one hand, the bill states that no benefits will be given to illegal aliens. However, on the other hand, it does not require applicants to show proof of citizenship to receive benefits.
          This bill:

            1. Promotes Massive ‘Government Run Healthcare’ at Taxpayers’ Expense. The Democrats admit this bill is a step to help achieve their longtime goal of bureaucratic government-run health care. (H.R. 976)
            2. Provides SCHIP Benefits to Adults. The Democrats’ bill continues to use taxpayer dollars to fund SCHIP for adults through 2012, taking away limited resources from needy kids – the original intent of the program when it was created by Republicans in 1997. (Section 112)
            3. Allows Middle- & Upper-Income Kids With Private Sector Health Care to Receive SCHIP Benefits. The measure fails to focus on low-income children and instead grandfathers states like New York which provide SCHIP benefits to children with middle- and upper-income families who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $83,000). (Section 114)
            4. Shifts Two Million Kids with Private Health Care to Government-Run ‘Healthcare.’ According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Democrats’ bill would shift some two million children who are currently in private health care plans to government-run health care – shifting more and more costs to American taxpayers.
            5. Provides Benefits for Illegal Immigrants. The Democrats’ bill opens the door for SCHIP and Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants by substantially weakening a requirement that persons applying for such services show proof of citizenship or nationality. (Section 211)
            6. Invites Waste, Fraud, & Abuse in Enrolling Targeted Populations Such as Illegal Immigrants. The Democrats’ bill includes a state option which allows "express enrollment" for Medicaid & SCIHP benefits without proving eligibility, such as documenting proof of citizenship. (Section 203)
            7. Bait & Switch Budget Gimmick Masks the True Cost to Taxpayers. The Democrats’ bill purposely misleads American taxpayers by "fudging" the actual cost of the entitlement expansion plan by $40 billion and would force five million children off SCHIP by drastically cutting the funding in 2013. (Section 101 & 108)
            8. Dramatically Increases Taxes on Working Families. The Democrats’ bill hikes tobacco taxes by 61 cents per pack, once again proving that Democrats are harming low-income families they claim to want to help. In April, 15 Democrats acknowledged this fact when they sent a letter to Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) encouraging him not to raise the tobacco taxes in the budget resolution because they were not only regressive but a declining source of revenue. (Section 701)
            9. Includes Hidden Earmarks. Despite Democratic claims that the bill is "earmark-free," the Democrats’ bill includes an earmark that directs taxpayer money to a hospital in Tennessee, and may contain other earmarks as well. (Section 618 & others)
           10. Increases Spending by More than Double Current Levels. The Democrats’ bill increases spending on SCHIP by more than double current levels. The current program is budgeted at $25 billion over five years, while the Democrats’ bill calls for an increase of another $35 billion over five years. That commitment will likely increase over time and become yet another unsustainable government entitlement program. (Section 101 & 108)

      •  go here for a good list (0+ / 0-)

        James L at SSP has compiled a good one.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:41:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um, Gilchrest voted FOR it! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        captainlaser

        I've been saying for a while that the DCCC should talk to Gilchrest and get him to switch parties.  He's much more progressive than quite a few of the Blue Dogs anyway.

        He's with us on Iraq, on the environment (usually), on abortion, on stem cell research....  Oh, and he's no chickenhawk either, surviving getting shot in the chest in Vietnam.

        And the GOP now wants to primary him out.  I say we welcome him into our party with open arms.

    •  this comment linked (0+ / 0-)

      from main story.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:25:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Public Approval and ha ha ha Dem "leadership" (0+ / 0-)

    the bet isn't really if our worthless sacks of shit are gonna run from whatever brazen lies the fascists conconct

    the bet is what % of our worthless sacks of shit are gonna show their true colors, and leave kids to hang out to dry due to some fascist lie?

    another 80 to 14 sell out?

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:12:43 PM PDT

  •  why can't the dems get their act together ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby, Glic

    I've been watching the latest Burns/Novick miniseries,
    http://www.pbs.org/...

    I am even more firm in my resolve now, to END the war/occupation of Iraq.  

    Why are so many dems voting with the republicans on certain national policy issues?  Why is this Iraq war still going on ?  

    Sometimes I feel like beating my head against a hard surface.  (Only for a short while)

    •  Short answer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Superpole

      Why are so many dems voting with the republicans on certain national policy issues?  Why is this Iraq war still going on ?  

       
        Because a lot of powerful people are making a lot of money off of it.

        And they're contributing to Democrats now to ensure they continue to.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Take your pick--there are so many reasons (0+ / 0-)

      -- They're too spineless and scared to do anything about it.
      -- They're in too deep with the pro-war side (AIPAC, neocons, M-I complex).
      -- They actually believe in the war.
      -- They're too clueless to know what to do.
      -- They see prolonging the war as a political winner for them in '08.
      -- They hate progressives and this is their way of telling us to fuck off.
      -- They just don't care.

      There are doubtlessly others. And they're not mutually exclusive.

    •  Why are so many dems voting with the republicans (0+ / 0-)

      Why are so many dems voting with the republicans on certain national policy issues?

      You just asked the $64 BILLION dollar question!

      or in the case of the Iraq/Afghanistan farce, the $1 TRILLION dollar question-- i.e. $1 Trillion dollars will be siphoned out of our Treasury-- a large part of this going directly into the bank accounts of a few corporate members of bu$hco.

      and a significant chunk of this money will go directly into the accounts/homes/compounds of dozens of Iraqi sheiks and tribal leaders which the Marines recently learned could be bought off-- the Iraqi people (the "insurgents") we've been hearing about-- are being paid by we the sappy taxpayers to stop attacking and killing our military forces in Iraq.

      wait--!! of course, this is just another example of clownservative "trickle down" economics... but in this case we're creating a welfare state thousands of miles away which will "need" our money for decades to come in order to be "stabilized".

      what a Load.

      Cerberus: In Greek mythology, the three-headed watchdog who guards the entrance to the lower world, the Hades.

      by Superpole on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:59:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strength (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Glic, tiredntexas

    Now if the democrats would act as if they are in a position of strength . . .

  •  Democrats must effectively challenge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrangeAnimals

    the Republican assertion that SCHIP and withdrawal from Iraq are "liberal Democrat ideas", when a majority of those polled support SCHIP and troop withdrawal, while only 24 percent view themselves as liberal and 45 percent view themselves as moderate.

    You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. (Leroy) Eldridge Cleaver -1968

    by tiredntexas on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:17:08 PM PDT

  •  Breaking: Senate approves $150B in war funding (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Glic

    WASHINGTON - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

    In the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    •  Here we go again. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yosef 52

      The Dems don't want to end this war - they want reports. One has to wonder what a report might have to contain to get them to wake up and smell the coffee.

      This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

      by Snud on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:22:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush says that the Congressional SCHIP bill (6+ / 0-)

    takes money away from the families that need it most.

    He didn't show you their picture:
    George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, & Lyn Cheney. On stage after speeches. On big board

    Ninety percent of life is just showing up. Woody Allen
    The other 10% is homework. Anonymous student.

    by captainlaser on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:20:22 PM PDT

  •  Maybe we should tell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Glic

    The Democratic Party about the war, since they barely acknowledge it exists on their home page.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:20:23 PM PDT

  •  Shoot...guess this means we have to do (0+ / 0-)

    what Bush and the GOP want us to do. Oh well.

    Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

    by Glic on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:20:33 PM PDT

  •  reid is a sick fool (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    can only pass bills that support and fund the war and rallies the republican base when they were in disarray - resign you feckless twit.

  •  that's not enough! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrangeAnimals

    Congressional Dems need 100% support from Americans or they'll be accused of making radical decisions! They need complete assurance! Otherwise it's too risky!

    Exclamation points!!

    Politics is the deliberation of one's moral enterprise.

    by Omen on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:21:50 PM PDT

  •  Most Americans Aren't Crazy (0+ / 0-)
  •  Approval of congress is a Misleading question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Maven, LynneK, Adam H

    I think this question is misleading.

    How can anyone, regardless of political stripe, say they approve of the congress as a whole?

    Republicans can't approve, because the Democrats are in the majority.

    Democrats can't approve, because that would mean they approve of the roadblocking strategy of the Republicans.

    I don't think the Dems have been strong enough, but I am very glad they are in the majority, and we need more and better dems.

    •  that's exactly right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Maven, SecondComing

      that's why the followup is:

      Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq war policies, while only a third think the Democrats have already gone too far. The level of agitation for more action in opposition to the war has not dissipated since August 2005, when Democrats were the minority party in Congress.

      That's 55 of Americans, not liberals, progressives or any other sub-group.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More Democrats won't help if they are DLC types (0+ / 0-)

      If you want out of Iraq, support Better democrats via primary challenges.  We (anti-war faction) have a better chance of flipping a purple state than red.

      Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

      by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:47:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But this is somewhat promising: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemFromCT

      By a 2 to 1 margin, those who see little accomplishment in Congress's first nine months blame the inaction on Bush and the GOP more than they do the majority Democrats. Fifty-one percent place primary fault with the president and congressional Republicans, and 25 percent on the Democrats. Among independents, 43 percent blame Republicans, 23 percent Democrats and nearly three in 10 blame both sides equally.

      The general public can at least see that an attempt is being made, but the Repubs are playing obstructionist really well.  I think the one-vote majority in the Senate with Mr. Lieberman at least appearing to be on the cusp of changing who he caucuses with has a lot to do with how aggressive the Dem leadership is willing to be in the Senate.  

  •  I can see it now (0+ / 0-)

    Rallying the Republican campaign staffs for the upcoming election..

    Cheat Harder! Cheat Louder! Cheat! Cheat! Cheat!

    I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein

    by SecondComing on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:27:11 PM PDT

  •  Republicans: Cruel, Callous To Sick Childre (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, hpg

    ..it was amost laughble reading about Mitch McConnell over the weekend, complaining that the Democrats had the audacity to allow a young child directly affected by the issue to serve as their spokesperson regarding the child healthcare bill vetoed by Bush and opposed by most Republican'ts.
    McConnell then complaint that the Democrats would try to use the issue to try to paint the Republicans as uncaring.

    Well...duh.

    Mr. McConnell and your fellow cold-hearted, credit-
    card conservatives...here's a little piece of advice if you want the Republican Party to remain alive as a viable political party into the future (it would actually be my hope that it dies the death it so well deserves, but will give you this advice anyway)...
    The reason so many people find the current Republican Party to be so "uncaring" and so "compassionless" and so cynical and so cold-hearted is because...the Republican Party continues to behave like that. So...instead of complaining that people will see your party as cold-hearted, my advice to you would be to stop your party from actually being a bunch of cold-hearted, uncaring and compassionless so-called "conservatives" who continue to pander shamelessly to the worst instincts in people, like narrow-mindedness, selfishness, intolerance and greed.
    If the Republican Party would stop acting the way it does, perhaps people might not consider your party members to be so...heartless and cruel...such as you have behaved toward the children of this country with your opposition to extending the health care benefits to sick children.
    If you want to prevent the Democrats from accusing you of neglecting our nation's sick children, then perhaps your party should...stop neglecting our nation's sick children.

  •  I want to see the poll results on Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    My interpretation of what you present is that Americans are fed up with the war.  They expect Dems to change course more than Republicans, but are fed up with Congress' repeatedly caving to Bush on funding.

    Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

    by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:38:56 PM PDT

    •  here (0+ / 0-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:42:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LynneK
        1. Do you think (the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties); OR, do you think (the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)?

                    Keep forces   Withdraw forces   No opinion
        9/30/07          43              54               3
        7/21/07          39              59               3
        4/15/07          42              56               2
        2/25/07          42              56               2
        1/19/07          46              52               3
        12/11/06         48              48               4

        A majority of Americans have been in favor of an immediate pullout since mid January!

        Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

        by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:55:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Senate passed the Iraq funding in the 648 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    billion Defense bill today.

    Feingold and Byrd voted no .

    Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that".

    by gotalife on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:40:53 PM PDT

  •  Public Prefers Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    that do their fucking jobs...89%

    Did anyone see Rahm Emmanuel on Real Time spelling out why we're not going to see any change in Iraq until there's a Democrat in the WH?  What a tool.  If he would simply do his fucking job, we would have traction all over the place.

    But the Dems won't do their jobs, nor will they succeed at anything we put them in there to do because they are all beholden to their corporations.  

    Whining about it won't help, either, even if it makes me feel better...stupid politicians.

    The MSM is propaganda.

    by mmuskratt on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:44:53 PM PDT

    •  Tell it like it is (0+ / 0-)

      I copied your post and e-mailed it to Emanuel's office, along with my endorsement of it's content. I think we need to start sending our sentiments to all of these spineless bastards, until they get the hint.

      Would there be this eternal seeking if the found existed? ~Antonio Porchia, Voces.

      by Wilby A Hasben on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:06:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BAD... BAD ... BAD!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tenuous Leemployed, Mark27

    This is VERY BAD legislation!
    It is aimed at children from families that do not have health coverage that could afford it. The really bad thing about it is how they plan to pay for the increase... on the backs of those who can least afford it : The smokers of America. An increase in tax to $1.oo, that's right... ONE DOLLAR per pack of cigarettes sold would be used for the increase in spending this bill calls for. Having said that, did you know that 80% of smokers in this country are in the lower income brackets? I hope Bush does veto this garbage! If they want to pass a bill that someone has to pay for, then go after those rich bitches that get all the tax breaks... not us poor suckers that don't have any more to give! Let's add a tax to large SUV's and Mercedes drivers, or a tax on ALL homes with values over $250,000 to pay for it. How about a dollar added to every airplane ticket, or a quarter to every toll booth, or maybe a dime to all cell phone calls to pay for it. Why not just end the damn war!
    Sounds stupid to you? Well, what do you think a $1.00 a pack of smokes sounds like to me?

    Say "NO" to school uniforms (Bush loves them!)

    by bfsid on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:49:00 PM PDT

    •  Not Quite... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby, LynneK

      It's aimed at children who are caught in the GAP, whose parents make enough not to qualify for medicaid or CHP but whose eployers don't offer coverage.  In NYC, purchasing coverage for a Family of 4 can cost $12,000.     If you make $45,000 you don't qualify for CHP.  You can't afford purchasing coverage And your employer can't afford it, or choses not to, you end up screwed.

      That's who this aimed at.

      •  That's just stupid! (0+ / 0-)

        I make $32,000 a year. I have medical coverage I pay $93 a week for. That alone drops me back to an income of $27,000. I also pay fed taxes, FICA, and medicare taxes. I manage because I have to. I WOULD LOVE that $45,000 base income. Let's talk about that new war funding bill approved today... what was it now, $156 billion? $156 billion, minus the $35 billion needed for this SCHIP increase, leaves Bush $121 billion for Iraq. Problem solved! I am currently a registered democrat, but if they keep this kind of stupid crap up I swear I will vote republican! Do the DEMOCRATS really want to win the elections??? They damn well better clean out their fucking ears and start listening to that 80% lower income folks!

        Say "NO" to school uniforms (Bush loves them!)

        by bfsid on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:17:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Insurance mandates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          illinifan17

          It would be nice to bring the troops home and use that money to help pay for insurance for kids and adults alike.  

          Right now though, what we can do is cover an additional 4 million children through a program that works.  That has strong support from R's, D's, Business, Labor, the insurance lobby, and health advocacy groups.

        •  Do you not understand (4+ / 0-)

          that what is considered a "good living" in one area of the country is "barely making ends meet" in another? There are areas of this country where the freaking cost of rent for a residence large enough for a family of 4 is as much as $1200 per month (that's $14,400 per year). Subtract that from the $32,000 salary and you have $17,600. Take from that the cost of medical insurance for that family for a year (another $14,400), you are left with a grand total of $3,200 to pay utilities, groceries, etc. for the entire year...think you could do that?

          Just because that amount sounds good to you, based upon where you live and the costs in that area doesn't mean that it is not barely substistence level in other parts of the country. Hell, where I live, if I made $32,000, I would be living high on the hog, but I don't assume that just because that is the case for me, the case is the same for everyone else in the country.

          "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi

          by LynneK on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:17:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ya know... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby

          I quit smoking after 40 years of abusing my lungs, in hopes that I won’t die of emphysema like my dad and uncle did. That was 4 years ago, and so far, so good.
          I knew for the last 25 years or so that I smoked that I was damaging myself, and for the last 10 years or so years that I was damaging the people close to me.
          But it was my right, so tough shit, right?
          Now, you complain to me about having to support childrens health???  If you’re looking for sympathy, it’s in the dictionary somewhere between shit and syphilis.
          I’ll make a deal with you.  Let’s both agree that Medicare shouldn’t cover any smoking related illnesses, so the medicare taxes that I’ve paid all these years aren’t  used for something that I feel is the result of your own stubborness, and I’ll agree that your nasty habit  shouldn’t be used to  support health insurance for our children. I believe that financially, you’ll come out on the short end of the stick on that one too.
          And keep in mind, as DemfromCt said, it’s the repiglicans that insist that a cigarette tax be used to fund this. Be mad at the world if you will, but direct your ire mostly at the group that’s screwing you.

          Would there be this eternal seeking if the found existed? ~Antonio Porchia, Voces.

          by Wilby A Hasben on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:49:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You Confirm All the Rumors.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tenuous Leemployed

            .....about "former smokers" being the most smug, insufferable, unsympathetic jerks on the planet.  I'll do you one better.  I'm a nonsmoker....never have smoked in fact....and I find your logic despicable.

            First of all, if not for those evil smokers, the hourglass on Medicare would run out much sooner than it will now.  Why?  Because the early attrition of smokers keeps them from spending as many years feeding off of Medicare's nickel. Whatever merits you believe that presents to society, it lays waste to your science fiction about Medicare disproportionately funding smokers.  Do you really believe that in an America where nobody smoked and where the average life expectancy was several years longer (an extra 10 years for geriatrics to bleed off Medicare), that health care costs would go DOWN?  Would you some ocean-front property that I have for sale as well?

            Here's my solution.  Why don't we fund SCHIP by taxing those who fancy themselves better than everyone else......with a surplus on "former smokers" reduced to running their brethren through the mud.  If only those who thought their shit didn't stink could pay for SCHIP, every child in America would have health care next week!

            •  You may find my logic despicable, but (0+ / 0-)

              I believe yours leaves a lot to be desired also.
              I’m not real sure how you make the stretch from my being a former smoker to being a "smug, insufferable, unsympathetic" jerk.  I could certainly be all those things without ever having smoked a cigarette. You seem to be living proof of that, based simply on your assumptions.

              Evil smokers? Any of my friends that are smokers are welcome to come over to my house and smoke all they want. I still have plenty of ashtrays left from my days as a smoker. No problem. Do you afford your guests the same courtesy?

              " If only those who thought their shit didn't stink could pay for SCHIP, every child in America would have health care next week!".

              You seem to have a very low opinion of a large segment of the population. Apparently, you must believe that all former smokers believe themselves to be "better than everyone else". You’re painting with a pretty broad brush. With your feigned sympathy for current smokers, I have to wonder if you are a tobacco farmer?

              As to the issue at hand, yes, I am unsympathetic to the argument  being made that the method of funding for SCHIP is unfair. I see it as an incentive for smokers to quit which, IMHO, would be a good thing. When I was still smoking, I was never against any measures that encouraged me to quit, because I knew that without some incentives, I would probably never quit. As it was, I had to watch two people that were very close to me suffer for a long time, and die horrible deaths to give me the courage to quit. While I am not sympathetic to the smokers’ arguments about this tax, I would bet that I am infinitely more sympathetic to the difficulties smokers face, both in trying to quit, and in the health problems they face, than you could ever understand. Apparently, according to what you say, you must believe that smokers should keep right on killing themselves, not for any altruistic reason, but only to save Medicare for yourself, and like-minded people. Sounds a little selfish to me.

              Funding SCHIP with a tobacco tax is going to be a short-term fix at best. As the price of cigarettes goes up and the smoking population goes down, as it surely will, other sources of funding will be found.

              As to your contention that health care costs for the rest of us would go up if there were fewer smokers,  your explanation is some of the most twisted logic I’ve ever heard. Why? Because those people that would be living 10 years longer would not be chronically ill during their golden years, and would therefore be much less reliant on the health care system than the smokers that are constantly depending on the system for long-term care.

              "Would you some ocean-front property that I have for sale as well?"

              Now that, my friend, is a well written, well thought out statement, (or question). You have a real future as a writer.

              Would there be this eternal seeking if the found existed? ~Antonio Porchia, Voces.

              by Wilby A Hasben on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:10:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Make the Connection of You Being... (0+ / 0-)

                ....a former smoker and a smug, insufferable, unsympathetic jerk because of comments like these....

                "Now, you complain to me about having to support childrens health???  If you’re looking for sympathy, it’s in the dictionary somewhere between shit and syphilis."

                "I’ll make a deal with you.  Let’s both agree that Medicare shouldn’t cover any smoking related illnesses, so the medicare taxes that I’ve paid all these years aren’t  used for something that I feel is the result of your own stubborness, and I’ll agree that your nasty habit  shouldn’t be used to  support health insurance for our children."

                Do I afford my smoking friends access to ashtrays in my home?  Yes, as a matter of fact.  My girlfriend is a smoker and has the freedom to light up at my place.  My dad and some of my smoking friends do the same when they visit less frequently.

                Tobacco farmer?  Nope...just someone who hasn't jumped onboard the bully train to smack around smokers.  And certainly not every former smoker is as smug and unsympathetic as you, but whenever I hear or read the most flamboyant anti-tobacco diatribes, they seem to be prefaced with "I used to be a smoker" language.  You know, like yours was.

                And for such a smart guy, I'm curious why you haven't recognized the illogic of simultaneously wanting to "create an incentive for smokers to quit" by way of huge new regressive taxes, yet planning to fully fund the expansion the health care of children with the same declining revenue source.  Ouch!  Guess you didn't that through very well, huh?

                And bravo for the predictable bait-and-switch on the Medicare argument.  Completely abandoning your former specious claim that it's short-lived smokers bankrupting Medicare instead of long-lived nonsmokers, you have now expressed exasperation at my ethics for pointing out that the opposite is true.  It has nothing to do with selfishness, friend.  Smoking is the choice of smokers.  I respect that.  You don't.  Selfishness, Wilby, is trying to force smokers to single-handedly finance the expansion of an unrelated children's health care program while you sit judgmentally on the sidelines expressing your empty "support" for the program.

                Other sources of funding will be found?  Like what?  And why not find them now?  Oh that's right....because you want to force smokers to live forever against their will.

                In regards to my "twisted logic", the adult smoking rate has fallen by half in the last generation....yet health care costs (especially Medicare) continue to go up.  It's almost as though the Ronald Reagans of our culture (whose numbers are going up quickly) are running up higher health care bills than the George Harrisons (whose numbers are in freefall).  At what point, after all these years of dramatic declines in the smoking rate, are we gonna cross the threshold that our health care costs start going down?  When do the lavish savings of "healthy lifestyles" start kicking in and raining down money on taxpayers no longer burdened from financing smokers?  Funny, because all I see is health care costs rising at the fastest pace ever in recent years.

                And yes, I missed a word in that one sentence in my post.  I guess that gets you off the hook from two posts chock full of sophomoric logic.  Good luck with that buddy.

    •  Grassely and Senate Rs insisted on cig tax (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unstable Isotope, LynneK

      as the price for passage. The American people support it despite a cig tax being just as regressive as you suggest.

      This is the bill on the table, imperfect as it is. American voters do not want it vetoed.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Would Gladly Hand Bush the Pen.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....with which he will veto this legislation as currently funded.  The Democrats deserve to lose this one if they're so gutless than they're gonna prey on their own low-income voters to finance an expansion middle-class health care.  It's unconscionable.

  •  Don't just take the WaPo's word on it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    Listen to what Repub voters think about it (from a diary that I posted last week):

    Yet more wingnuts abandoning the party over yet one more issue that it's wrong on. Although, most likely these are what few remaining "moderate" Repubs there are.

  •  I've said, over and over again... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that this was one of those issues that I believed the majority of Americans, including Republicans, would support.

    I understand Bush is on his way to Crawford (not soon enough for me however) in 16 months and can afford to veto, but I do NOT understand how so many Republicans in the congress could vote against this.

    Denying children health care?

    Is this was the Republicans are going to run on now that gay marriage bans have petered out?

    01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

    by kimoconnor on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Math (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby

    So what this is saying, is that the majority of people who disapprove of the Congressional Democrats still support the Democratic position on SCHIP and the war. Am I reading that right?

    So the majority of people who disapprove of Democrats in Congress, disapprove of them because they aren't going far enough?

    That's a pretty impressive statement if true.

    •  See my comment above (0+ / 0-)

      The majority of Americans are in favor of an immediate pullout.  And have been since January!

      Woo-Hoo!!  WUP! WUP! WUP!!!

      Made my day.  (In a frustrating sort of way.)

      Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

      by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:58:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not immediate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taylormattd

        they don't want to stay; they don't want to pull out immediately. they want immediate START of withdrawal.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:04:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll take that! (0+ / 0-)

          It still means "centrist" do-nothing Dems are full of it.

          Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

          by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:16:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But actually... (0+ / 0-)

            After re-reading the question carefully, I disagree.

            OR (do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)?

            The key words here are "to avoid further US casualties".  How else do you achieve that than by  getting them out in a prudent, but speedy manner?

            Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool (almost) all the people some of the time, and 30% all the time."

            by Helpless on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:23:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What if... (0+ / 0-)

              ...our chizzlewit president determines that a withdrawal spread out over five years instead of five weeks will be less chaotic, and ultimately less deadly to our forces?  

              Yeah, I know, it sounds like nonsense to you and me.  But to Fearless Leader...

              "Jiminy God!" --Larry Craig, on the shocking notion that anyone might think he was gay

              by rlamoureux on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:27:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  ambiguous (0+ / 0-)

              but other better worded polls make it crystal clear.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:00:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Iraq Summer group in IL-10 is on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HealthProject

    They've set up a Rapid Response Readiness for the Bush SCHIP veto to mobilize people into action.

    Protect our Kids' Future and end Kirk-Bush's War!

    President Bush is preparing to sacrifice our children's future by vetoing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), so that he can continue to fund his and Congressman Kirk's endless war in Iraq.

    Join us as we organize nationally to stop them!!!

    The Iraq Campaign and its local partners across the country are putting tens of thousands of their members on high alert to respond to Bush's veto and to bring the troops home.

    The day after Bush's veto, join us as we respond in full force with a rally outside Congressman Kirk's district office, at 707 Skokie Boulevard in Northbrook, from 6 to 7 PM.

    Please respond to this email to sign-up for 24-hour advance notification of the rally!

    Once you RSVP, you will receive a "rapid response" notification by phone and email the day of the veto that the rally will be held the next day.  

    If you prefer receiving a text message alert, please include your cell phone number.

    Also, we need volunteers for phone banks to get the word out! Contact Michael Deheeger at illinois3@iraqsummer.org

    In the meantime, call Congressman Kirk's office daily, at 847-940-0202, to demand that he stand up for people, not more dollars to Iraq, by voting to override the president's veto and to set deadlines to bring the troops home!

    Let's End the War in Iraq and Invest in America's and our Children's Future!

    This is a very coordinated action among various township groups.  The Tenth Dems will send out an email the day the veto comes down to turn people out, as will MoveOn and True Majority. They've set up a website.

    They're also setting up phone banks...

    Phone Banks:

    For the phone bank the day of the veto, we have 18 people committed to showing up. A few of them have cautioned they can only make it if they are available that particular day.

    For the Moms Against the War phone bank the following day, we have one military mom committed, Sharon Saxelby of Chicago, and 5 10th district moms.

    We need more volunteers for both phone banks, especially the Mom one. I know it's nigh impossible, especially with all your packed schedules, to preemptively set aside time without knowing for which day. However, that's the nature of this Rapid Response action. For those who can't make that commitment, it would be great if they could each find one person who can.

    And veto action alert emails...

    I have drafted the email which needs to be forwarded to all the above lists when the veto comes down. It's absolutely crucial that it go out as soon as you receive it. Please call me on my cell phone, at 847-562-5239, if there will be a problem.

    Please notice, when we send it out, we are inviting people to bring their kids, since this is partly about children's healthcare. It would be great if those of you with children could do so.

    And a rally...

    As of now, we have 24 people committed to showing up at the rally, on the assumption that they have nothing else scheduled for that day. I know many of you, and others, may be planning on coming even though you have not yet RSVPd, but we really need you to RSVP so we have a ballpark idea of how many to expect.

    "Overcome anger by love, evil by good, the greedy by generosity, and the liar by truth." - Buddha

    by madame defarge on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:06:24 PM PDT

  •  SCHIP and Stem Cell Research: perfect together (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, Yosef 52, Debby, LynneK

    The American public really, really want both.  
    Bush and his enablers fart in our general direction and taunt us a second time.

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:27:00 PM PDT

  •  So, what happens when *Republicans* cave to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

     public pressure and start going against Bush, and Dems are left caving
    into Bush.  Won't that be weird and ironic?

    BenGoshi
    ________________________________________________________________________

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:35:17 PM PDT

  •  "Why have you murdered the illustrious warriors.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK


    . . . that Heaven has given you?"

    Just heard this on History Channel, on in the other room.  From a letter from
    one of Ivan the Terrible's generals who defected in the midst of another senseless bloodbath battle that Ivan had thrown his army into.  An army of conquest, according to Ivan's plan.

    Gee, the more things change...

    BenGoshi
    __________________________________________________________________________

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:40:24 PM PDT

  •  Those who support SCHIP don't pay for it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark27

    I'm a nonsmoker, but in what universe is it fair to charge smokers for the medical care of children? Rob Reiner has done this in California, and it's just despicable.

    Plus, smokers are generally lower income earners, so we are taxing the very people who can least afford it!

    With taxes on cigarettes rising, cigarette smuggling is on the rise, particularly in the northeast where our states border Canada. Is this really what we want to do in this country: create a black market in a legal product?

    Few liberals doubt that we need medical care for everyone, especially children, but if we're going to do it, everyone in the United States should pay for it, not just a small minority with no voice or power to protest.

    •  with enough votes (0+ / 0-)

      you can do that. Dems wanted medicare advantage rolled back; Rs wanted cig taxes.

      This is what came out of negotiations.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not Surprising that 75% of the Population.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tenuous Leemployed

      ....approves a SCHIP expansion that the other 25% will be forced to pay for.  Disgusting that the Democrats are engaging in the same wedge-issue politics as the GOP, but they're idiots to put the bullseye on the forehead of their own low-income voting base.  Despicable!

      •  Republicans Insisted that Cigarette Revenue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby

        Be included in the bill. But you know, screw kids, as long as smokers can keep smoking for cheap, who cares, right? I have way more sympathy for sick kids than smokers.

        The Fix is In! The September Report Says Iraq is AWESUM!!!1111!!!!11

        by kefauver on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:10:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It Doesn't Have to be Kids vs. Smokers.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tenuous Leemployed

          ....as much as Congress would want you to believe that in their quest for path-of-least-resistance demagoguery.  This was the perfect opportunity to rally the nation around a popular cause and break the "no new taxes" ethos with a call for very minor collective sacrifice.  But no....Congress insisted on taking the cowardly way out by foisting hundreds of new dollars in new annual tax burden on the working-class to pay for middle-class health care.  This funding mechanism is indefensible in every possible way.  If Congress can't do better than this, they deserve to lose this fight.

          •  Heaven forbid that cigarettes become too (0+ / 0-)

            expensive and a few smokers may be forced to quit and wind up saving themselves from a lingering death from cancer or emphyasema.

            I knew someone who's husband died from emphyasema from smoking, who lived for months barely being able to catch his breath.  What a hell.  I would glady support taxing the cigarette companies into oblivion.

            •  Never Ceases To Amaze Me.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tenuous Leemployed

              ....the lack of common sense people have.  If people quit smoking, SCHIP goes unfunded....meaning children will not have any additional health care than they do today.  Less smoking = less funding for children's health care under this funding mechanism.  Is that calculation really too complicated for you?  Doesn't make much sense to think you can have it both ways, does it?

              And you're not taxing cigarette companies into oblivion....you're taxing their disproportionately low-income customer base into oblivion.  Do I strike a blow against Wal-Mart by spitting on one of their minimum-wage employees?  That's the equivalent of what you're spinning by saying this is a tax on "Big Tobacco".

              •  My common sense tells me (0+ / 0-)

                that SCHIP is in no danger of going unfunded because TOO MANY people will quit smoking.

                If only that were the case.  

                •  Why Do You Think You Get To Have It Both Ways? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tenuous Leemployed

                  SCHIP's funding mechanism is counting upon existing smoking rate to hold up after the tax is imposed.  If even 10% of smokers quit or simply buy their cigarettes from the black market (one of the fastest-growing industries in the country thanks to the ALREADY artificially high prices of cigarettes), SCHIP doesn't have the funds it needs to operate.

                  So which do you want?  Smokers to quit?  Or middle-class children to have free health care?  I'll tell you what I want....for people like you who so fervently support this SCHIP expansion to consider paying for it yourself rather than foisting the bill on "naughty" poor people.  What a concept, huh?

                  •  your argument has been rejected (0+ / 0-)

                    by the American people 3:1, and that's a demonstrable fact.

                    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:24:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The 3 Being Those Who Don't Pay For It.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tenuous Leemployed

                      ....the 1 being those who do.  Big surprise there.  So yet another example of extreme selfishness by the American people constitutes a victory for the progressive movement in your mind, huh?  Stunning.

                      Why don't we just impose a 100% tax on the poorest quintile of Americans and be done with it rather than this nickel-and-diming?  I'm sure "the American people" would support that 3-1 too.  Hell, maybe even 4-1!  But probably not 5-1.

                      •  I'm puzzled by this (0+ / 0-)

                        Why would congress want to take a noble cause like SCHIP and fuck it up by tying it to a regressive and discriminatory tax?

                        --
                        Gimme back my broken night
                        my mirrored room, my secret life
                        --Leonard Cohen, The Future

                        by Tenuous Leemployed on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:40:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  because it had to be paid for (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tenuous Leemployed

                          and republicans in the Senate insisted it be done this way or no bill. Since we're talking 67 votes to get anything done, this was the work product.

                          if nothing else, use it as a lesson to understand why the Dems have trouble getting anything done in the Senate (think Iraq).

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:12:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  more data (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tenuous Leemployed

                          This is what Dems wanted, but Grassley blocked it by witholding approval. Generally, to get something passed in a bipartisan fashion, you need to give something up or accept a part you don't like.

                          http://www.cqpolitics.com/...

                          Extensive Dismay

                          Grassley was not the only lawmaker upset about SCHIP on Thursday. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, sent a letter to other Democrats criticizing House Democratic leaders for agreeing to drop extensive Medicare provisions that were included in the House version (HR 3162).

                          "The Medicare and Medicaid portions of [the House bill] have been abandoned for rhetorical and/or political reasons that are unclear to me," Stark wrote.

                          Those provisions include new Medicare subsidies for low-income seniors and a reversal of cuts in Medicare reimbursements for physicians that are scheduled to take effect in 2008 and 2009. Those changes were to be paid for by cutting spending on Medicare Advantage, a Republican-favored program in which private insurers, rather than the government, provide benefits to seniors.

                          Stark promised to seek passage of all the provisions in the future. "I am sure there was no intent to betray the trust you placed in our committee," he wrote.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:18:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                      Were the American people given a choice? As in, either tax the general public, or tax cigarette smokers only?

                      --
                      Gimme back my broken night
                      my mirrored room, my secret life
                      --Leonard Cohen, The Future

                      by Tenuous Leemployed on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:36:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  nope (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Tenuous Leemployed

                        We don't have a democratic government, We have a republican government (small letters). it's set up for representatives to do that, and if you don't like their work, vote them out. DC isn't California, where you just add initiatives and propositions.

                        I also haven't seen any specific polling, either, between cig taxes and general taxes. But the fact is that if you want more progressive, less regressive policies, you need more Ds in DC. That's especially true in the WH.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:27:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  beg to differ (0+ / 0-)

                  Lower income people will look for ways to either circumvent or outright evade this regressive and discriminatory tax. So, yes, you could very well see SCHIP underfunded.

                  --
                  Gimme back my broken night
                  my mirrored room, my secret life
                  --Leonard Cohen, The Future

                  by Tenuous Leemployed on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:33:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  "Most Americans oppose fully funding" - Huh? (0+ / 0-)

    Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

    <sigh> You still don't get it, do you??

    while we citizens oppose the continuation of the massive rip off of our Treasury, almost everybody in Congress-- including numerous democrats, are in FAVOR of continuing the rip off.

    spare me, please, the feeble and watery democratic excuses as to "why they can't stop the war", why they "can't stop the funding".

    the backlash against lame democratic incumbents is coming (i.e. voters will simply stay home/vote for "none of the above") thereby weakening the democrats' ability to pick up more seats in congress.

    but I really don't think the democratic party cares about getting enough of a majority; the whole phoney lot of them are nothing but incompetent short term thinkers-- doing what their corporate masters want them to do.

    Cerberus: In Greek mythology, the three-headed watchdog who guards the entrance to the lower world, the Hades.

    by Superpole on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:49:28 PM PDT

  •  so this means (0+ / 0-)

    that the dems will continue to lie down on every filibuster attempt, and vote for every repug condemnation ammendment with a smile and keep failing to push through every anti-war ammendment they can think of because they're afraid of being seen as 'murka haters' or 'not supporting the troops' like 60% (a mandate) of murkins apparently seem to be doing.

  •  I'm confused... (0+ / 0-)

    Usually the public sides with Republicans on bringing better and more affordable health care to my family.  Republicans love Universal Health care and expanded coverage, right?

    They're so committed to help poor families!!

  •  Go, Eliot! (0+ / 0-)

    It's nice to read those poll numbers, too.

    tragically un-hip

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:21:26 PM PDT

  •  Money Changers (0+ / 0-)

    Drive the "Money Changers" out of Iraq.
    Neocons is "1984" for Nazis.
    Does anyone remember the Nazis?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site