Pantagraph.com | Letters | League of Women Voters urges Bush veto override

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

To: No government wrote on Oct 30, 2007 8:52 PM:

" You wrote: "The House failed as predicted to override the veto. So now it is the Democrats who hate children." hahahahahahah... to say either Repubs or Dems hate children is so ignorant, and even more ignorant to say it was the dems fault the veto wasn't overridden. Why wasn't there a veto override? ding ding ding... couldn't get enough republicans to change their vote... I find this issue so sad the the Congress is choosing a children's health care bill to play politics with. Both sides are trying to make political statements about a bill that would effect our economy and taxes only a fraction of the amount most do. Shame on Dems and Repubs alike for not working this out. "

GitUrDone wrote on Oct 24, 2007 6:32 AM:

" "Sox 05", you are one of the "38% and rising rapidly" crowd. Congress is the 24% crowd. Hey, "Child-free nonsmoking democrat ", what is a neocon? Even an old country bumkin like me knows what a neocon is, but I don't think you could find one, even is they wuz located where folks always see you, on the south end of a north bound heffer. Now, that's funny, no matter who you are. "

Sox 05 wrote on Oct 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

" To News Break: The only mental midgets are the ones who jump ship because it is a numbers game. I am one of the 24% and I will be one of the 1% if it goes that far. Bush has done some dumb things, this is not one of them. "

To: change your name wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:17 PM:

" Great comment! The league is clueless, they're the same outfit that thinks we don't need a bigger jail in spite of the fact that there has not been a single day in 2007 when we haven't paid to house McLean County Jail prisoners in other counties. They are a bunch of out of touch liberals that need to keep their opinions to themselves and get back into the kitchen and make their men some cookies. "

Child-free nonsmoking democrat wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:02 PM:

" Ah, I've touched some nerves. My maximum lifetime benefit is $1M, but thanks for asking! My wife is on student insurance b/c putting her on my policy would break our budget, so don't expect me to be thrilled about subsidizing somebody else. And "Santa", not all democrats are godless socialists, in spite of what the neocons want you to believe. "

honestly wrote on Oct 18, 2007 8:08 PM:

" I don't care if your kids have insurance or not...mine do because my wife and I are motivated enough to take care of business rather than sit and whine about what "we are entitled to".....your entitled to nothing but what you make yourself worth....if you can't take care of your own your worth nothing....just another flatulent barnacle on the hind end of humanity....I honestly just don't care about your problems and sure as hell am not responsible for paying the bill for your little mistakes but don't have an opt out form to submit "

Jan wrote on Oct 18, 2007 5:53 PM:

" My children went to private and didn't go to college in Illinois either! "

15 More Months it is.... wrote on Oct 18, 2007 5:04 PM:

" I'm holding my breath. They should legalize fireworks for Jan 21, 2009 just for the day. It'll be almost like a real independence day. You can feel it in the air. Tick tock. "

15 More Months ... wrote on Oct 18, 2007 4:10 PM:

" until our long national nightmare will comes to an end. "

Republican wrote on Oct 18, 2007 4:06 PM:

" I don't hate children, but why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare. I have no control whether these children eat their spinach or brush their teeth, or for that matter keep their pants zipped. I'd rather spend my money on the education of my own children to become healthcare workers and earn an honest day's wages for an honest day's work. "

YadaYada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 3:30 PM:

" "to: Yada" while it is true Bush is the biggest spending president in history, it is equally true that every preceding president was at one time the biggest spending president in history, and, furthermore, it is true that the very next president to take office, whoever it is, will be the biggest spending president in history. Each successive president has a larger budget than the previous one........gee, thanks for the fine example of "obfuscation". And, did I mention that every president, including Clinton, since 1969 borrowed lots of money to operate the government during their administrations? How about getting on their cases, too? Your hatred of Bush, like all hatred, has no rhyme or reason. In addition, did you forget that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? What is one of the best ways to get out of a recession? I say it's a loose monetary policy..........uhhhh, that includes deficit spending by government, in case you didn't know it, professor. "

Dangerous Jr. wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:59 PM:

" The most unsettling words in the English language to a 76% er are The Decider saying "I have a plan". "

to: no government wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:55 PM:

" No, it's still Republicans who hate children (though they love the fetus). It was Republicans who didn't shift over in enough numbers to override the veto. But something will happen, because those Republicans that have to face reelection would be uncomfortable going back home as child haters, if you get my drift. "

to: Yada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:50 PM:

" Read my first sentence again..I said you obfuscate the truth by saying Bush Jr. wants to control spending. He might want to control spending for things that don't interest him or are not war related, but overall, he does not control SPENDING. If he wanted to control spending he would have done so in the six years Republicans held the Congress. He remains the biggest spender of all time, and went on a reckless, drunken spending spree during his time on the throne. "

To Jan: wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

" I pay taxes too, it's not my job to pay for YOUR kids school that you can't afford. "

to No government wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:37 PM:

" When Bush has a plan, anyone who isn't a 24%er simply laughs a sad laugh. "

Dismayed wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:19 PM:

" Stop the drama already!! I'd have to say most people here get satisfaction out of helping others, especially those that are disadvantaged. The problems is, this bill goes far beyond that by letting the federal government reach deeper into everyone's pockets to redistribute wealth the way the government sees fit. In this case basically children from too broad of a economic scope. Did you ever once think your tax payments are too high now? If not, start your own business and hire some employees. Then, you'll get a clear picture of how much you pay out. It has to stop somewhere. "

No government wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:57 PM:

" The comments can end. The House failed as predicted to override the veto. So now it is the Democrats who hate children. They are the one who oppose Bush's plan to increase funding for SCHIP. Shall we take a page from the Libs and find a family who is now without care and exploit? Bush sinks SCHIP!!!! "

BN Liberal wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:21 PM:

" I'm sick and tired of you wage-earners not sharing your income with those of us who may not earn as much you and some who earn more than you. You were lucky enough to have won life's lottery by earning enough money at your job to provide for your family. A lot of you are lucky enough to have two wage-earners making enough money to provide for your family, even! But, in spite of all that, you refuse to share just a few bucks more. No, instead, you tell that rich fat-cat George Bush to veto a bill that would not only help the poor, but most of the middle class, as well. SELFISH REPUBLICANS!! If you would just agree to a tax increase, your employer could take the additional tax out of your check before you cash it and you wouldn't even know it was gone! "

to Bush hates children wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:11 PM:

" I don't know about you, but I pay a lot of taxes and I would love to get something for my money. I get almost no benefit from Federal Taxes. If they at least paid my kids' health insurance, that would be something. "

To: to: AM wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:44 PM:

" I think that's the SEC. The FCC tells people what they can and can't say. But they don't censor. "

D'oh! wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:42 PM:

" We would never have had these kids if we expected to pay for them. You can't change the rules mid-game. C'Mon! "

Hey wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:40 PM:

" It's official, House failed to override, so please Newsbreak and others proceed about the vast right wing conspiracy. Look at the bill and you will see it was flawed. "

Dismayed wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:37 PM:

" I used to think this was a caring community and a wonderful place to live. The selfishness and ignorance displayed here shake that belief to the core. "

Jan wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:58 AM:

" I pay taxes, too, and it's not my job to pay for kids YOU can't afford. "

Al wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:58 AM:

" Democrats hate kids and everyone knows it! They can't afford the ones they have and expect the rest of us to pay! Madam, if you cannot afford a car you don't buy one, the same goes for kids. What next? Buy them a house and provide a car? Grow up and act like a parent. YOU were the one who decided to have children so be a responsible parent and act like it already. "

Bush hates children wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:27 AM:

" Bush hates kids. Everybody knows this. I make $80,000/yr and my kids need help!!!! We are entitled to it!!!! I pay taxes! "

to: TO AM wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:18 AM:

" You will pay a certain percentage of your salary for health care. Depending upon what you make the percentages would optimally be the same. ie: 10% of your salary for somone who makes € 30.000 or €3.000 or 10% for someone who makes €60.000 or €6.000. You are asking for socialism, and you will pay out of your pocket for it. Nothing is for free. "

to: AM wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:16 AM:

" Yea, when I buy a stock, I hate having to pay taxes to support the FCC. We don't need this kind of socialism to keep people honest, I'd rather take my chances that they (the CEO's)are good people and won't steal my money. Yea right. And why should I pay to educate other peoples' kids? Mine are out of school. Why should I support Yada's retirement? Let them home school. Socialism is a dirty word in this country, and just because a majority of the people support universal healthcare, doesn't make it right. "

YadaYada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:14 AM:

" Because, "Credibility Factor to YY", middle-class income earners bear the majority of the income tax burden in this country..............so why create an additional income tax burden on the middle-class to pay for middle-class health insurance? That's like standing in the middle-class income line and taking money out of your right-pocket and putting it in your own left-pocket AND also the left-pocket of the person next to you in line. Instead, let's consider medical savings plans for individuals and systemic tax incentives to doctors and other healh providers. "

YadaYada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:48 AM:

" "to: Yada", you call me a liar; that I am hiding the truth? Well, then if you know for certain I am lying, then you also know what the exact lie is and exactly why I am lying? Tell me......what is my lie and why am I lying? "

To:Child-free nonsmoking democrat wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:38 AM:

" If you have health insurance look at the maximum amount the policy will pay out. You might want to pray that you're or your prescious wife are strickened with a life threatening illness because i would be the last person that would want to bail you out of your financial crisis when your policy reaches the maximum benift allowed. But...enjoy your selfish thoughts for now. "

TO:AM wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:34 AM:

" I have health insurance, and two children. I am already living in socialism for the rich and wealthy. I pay the same premium as a parent with 5 kids...tell me that makes sense? I am sure statistically speaking a family of 4 is going to spend less money on healthcare than a family of 7 on an average. But...someone has to help support the families with 3+kids. "

To:hmmh wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:30 AM:

" Tell me Mr.Smart guy...when those uninsured children runs to the hospital now and has a procedure done...who is paying for it? Do you think the hospital says...oh we will just put the childs parents in a collection agency and call it a day. They know they aren't going to receive a dime from most of the uninsured...so they raise the cost of medical practice. For the many of you to work at an insurance company your knowledge of the industry is rather embarassing. "

to Child-free nonsmoking democrat wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:23 AM:

" If you're a Democrat, then I'm Santa Claus. Your talking points are straight out of the RNC handbook. "

Child-free nonsmoking democrat wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:14 AM:

" My spouse and I have made the responsible decision not to have any children. There is no way that I want to subsidize other people's poor choices. If you're making $80K and can't afford to raise a child, you're probably living beyond your means somewhere else (maybe even because you've had 4 or 5 kids). Kudos to Bush for vetoing this, let's hope it's not overridden. "

to: Yada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:56 AM:

" When you say "The president disires to hold the line on spending" it is an obfuscation of truth. Bush Jr. is the biggest spender in American history, and he does much of it on borrowed money. No wonder the dollar isn't worth a crap. Bush Jr. is a big government, big brother Republican, make no mistakes about that. One week in Iraq pays for SChip. "

Credibility Factor to YY wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:46 AM:

" $500 Billion (amount spent in Iraq) divided by $7 Billion (for expanded healthcare for children) equals 71 years of funding potential for the program. So what if a few people in the middle class benefit, what do Republicans have against the middle class? They sure don't have a problem extending huge tax cuts to their rich friends or handing out corporate welfare, now do they? "

LOL Liberal wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:35 AM:

" Why aren't the fundies responding to NEWS BREAK! with their usual But, But, But Clinton reaction? Oh, that's because Clinton ended his presidency with 65-70% approval. I guess they will have to resort to these lame But, But, But Congress responses. God forbid they actually address the root causes of Bush's dismal ratings, that are now lower than Nixon's. "

YadaYada wrote on Oct 18, 2007 8:56 AM:

" "Credibility Factor", S-CHIP and poor little children are not the issue of the veto. The devil is in the details and the details of the appropriation bill allows coverage of members with a family income of $80,000 or more per year to qualify, depending upon certain qualifications. The president disires to hold the line on spending by restricting the program to the truly needy. Spending on the Iraq War will end sometime between now and January 2009; Guaranteed! The Democrat Congress can completely cut-off all war funds now, or a Democrat president can cut-off all funds in January 2009. We have the Democrats assurances they will do so. But, S-CHIP is an entitlement program that requires funding by tax revenues, FOREVER. And, the funding is guaranteed to increase due to inflation and/or program expansion. "

NEWS BREAK! wrote on Oct 18, 2007 8:52 AM:

" The Senate and House is very evenly split with slight majorities for the Dems. Because we have a Republican President with veto power, that means that the do-nothing, enabling Republican congress of the previous six years still persists in effect. That is what is fueling the low approval rating. In 2009 you can expect those ratings to take off. Hope a 24%er could follow that. "

Cosmic Surfer wrote on Oct 18, 2007 6:54 AM:

" Have ya ever noticed that when there is a disagreement with Bush's policies, the knee-JERK reaction by the right of right wing is to attack anyone that disagrees as a dirty rotten "liberal" or leftist? At 76% of the nation looking at Bush and saying "we can't agree this man", we dirty rotten "liberals" are the mainstream. Get over it . The MAINSTREAM is the norm and by definition can not be the left. Those who agree with Bush (and their numbers are dwindling rapidly) are not the norm, nor the mainstream. Out of touch as they are, they do have the ability to learn if they would actually listen (and not just Rush or O'Reilly. Instead, branch out a bit . Get in touch with those things that may sound scary like Obermann and, should I dare say it? AIR AMERICA????), Listen, truly LISTEN to what is being stated by that "other" side, instead of just bellowing at the "other" and following along with what this King wanna-be is putting out there....They might just see what the rest of the world sees. Reality is calling...Deal with it "

bert wrote on Oct 18, 2007 6:44 AM:

" i believe the nancy pelosi supporters would be the 10%ers if you want to talk poll numbers and idiotic references...... "

To News Break wrote on Oct 18, 2007 6:30 AM:

" the only thing lower than Bushs' ratings and Michael Jacksons' record sales are the Democratic House and Senate ratings which are now at 18%. If you want to play the numbers game be real about it. "

NEWS BREAK! wrote on Oct 17, 2007 10:45 PM:

" Those who have been claiming that the 25%ers are entrenched in mindless support of this adminstration have been proven dead wrong today - Lil Bush's approval rating hit a new low of 24%! So, if I am a, let's see, 24%er, I've gotta be thinking; "Hmmm, do I jump ship now and claim that I never really did think that Brownie, Rumsy and Gonzo were doing a heckuva job, or do I hang in there and risk looking as comical as the mental midget himself?" Allow me to answer with another question; How does 10%er sound? Is that the pitter-patter, splash, splash of rats I hear? "

To: Change your name wrote on Oct 17, 2007 10:19 PM:

" Get used to it, the fundies and neo cons are driving more and more fair minded people into the liberal camp with their hate and greed. "

To: Chicken Bone wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:37 PM:

" Well Said !!!!!!! "

Change your name wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:37 PM:

" The League needs to change their name to the League of Liberal Women Voters. As a voting woman, I never agree with their liberal stances. "

to Credibility Factor wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:01 PM:

" Some people are sick in the head... they would rather spend tax money on killing than on helping people. "

Chicken Bone wrote on Oct 17, 2007 1:06 PM:

" I will be happy to jump on board your wagon ladies-with one caveat-those receiving ANY money for programs such as these must submit to random drug, alcohol, and nicotine testing. If you pop positive, you loose your "entitlements" and you pay back everything paid to you already. Prioritize first, then come talk to me about how you can't pay for the children you had. If I am going to be forced to pay for your kids, I should have a say in how you live and raise them. "

Credibility Factor wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:39 PM:

" I cannot really say that I have a strong position with regard to this issue (I think a more comprehensive solution is needed for the healthcare system as a whole - but that is a complicated subject with many facets). What absolutely floors me though is how some of you can be so passionately opposed to a $7 Billion program that has at least some redeeming value and yet support the complete waste of $500 Billion in Iraq with an absolutely abysmal, negative result - 4,000 dead American soldiers, tens-of-thousands dead Iraqi civilians and a worsening of the terror threat, regional stability and international relations. To those, I suggest that your partisanship has tarnished your credibility. "

to AM wrote on Oct 17, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Increased taxes? You don't say. You know, I welcome the large tax increase that will come with Universal Health Care since I won't have to pay an outrageous health insurance premium for worthless coverage. "

No Chance wrote on Oct 17, 2007 10:34 AM:

" "The League of Women Voters of McLean County urges Tim Johnson and Jerry Weller to do the right thing ..." OK, the key words here are "the right thing". When have these two ever done "the right thing". My advice to The League of Women Voters is: Don't hold your breath! "

LittleMac wrote on Oct 17, 2007 10:27 AM:

" Does anyone know: is the League of Women Voters of McLean County the outfit that wears those funny red hats? "

AM wrote on Oct 17, 2007 9:25 AM:

" If you vote for something like this, you will pay for it in increased taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. You are talking about elements of socialism and socialism is a bad word in the USA. You people who support this type of insurance need to understand that it will cost you. For those of you who talk about the socialized programs in Europe, dont forget about the tax structures in Europe. YOU PAY MORE TAXES FOR THESE TYPE OF PROGRAMS. You get nothing for free. I wouldnt believe everything from SICKO either. Michael Moore only tells one side of the story. "

Spoede wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:17 AM:

" The League of Women Voters need to get a better understanding of the S-CHIP bill. Their knee-jerk reaction to this veto is an indication that they have not studied the bill and it's effects and its costs and who it will benefit. By the way, this is a democrat bill, only 45 House Republicans voted for it, hardly "overwhelming bi-partisan support", as the letter writer would have us believe. A good question to ask is, IF the only way to drum up support for this bill is to provide a deceitful description of it, does it really deserve our support? I think not. "

Oh wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:59 AM:

" Hey look people who didn't look at the entire legislature writing in to the Pantagraph. What poor kids were to be added? Overwhelmingly bi-partisan?? Really? Then why can't the veto be overidden? Seriously, quit getting your talking points from mediamatters and moveon.org. You might find yourself looking better educated on the subject. If it did pass, I would expect all of you to purchase cartons of cigs each week to fund this bill as it would take scores more smokers to fund this bill. That is ingenius. "

No government wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:58 AM:

" Yes, SCHIP is a good program for low income people. However, this bill was vetoed, because it dramatically expands the program to include families earning up to 80,000 per year. Bush supports the program in its current form and proposed to increase the money spent on it. But you never here that reported by the media do you? Bush saw it for what it was, another step towards government run healthcare. God bless the veto power!!!! "

comment wrote on Oct 17, 2007 6:16 AM:

" I get really tired of people with their "cause of the day" and they have no idea about cause and effect. When the effect occurs they conveniently forget the cause and blame George Bush. "

hmmh wrote on Oct 17, 2007 6:14 AM:

" Do the League of Women voters know what this bill is about and what consequence it will have on our socieity as a whole. Do they know who will pay for it and that the majority of people do not want it increased? Do they? "

Dead Eye Dick wrote on Oct 17, 2007 6:03 AM:

" Agreed, ladies. Let's help out neediest children. By increasing taxes on our poorest adults. It makes perfect sense to me. And has the additional benefit of making us all feel good. "

Wat Tyler wrote on Oct 17, 2007 5:40 AM:

" Considering the exraordinary programs already in place in Illinois, the argument that the S-Chip expansion that Pelosi and her klingons proposed is easily countered. What poor children exactly would be added to the rolls? This thinly disguised stealth approach to federalizing health care would be a financial nightmare. Increasing S-chip costs by $13 billion, doubing the current program, is not a realisticoption, it is a partisan political ploy. It could be argued that the whole program is unconstituional, that the socialistic approach of using the government to pick the pockets of the rich (or in this case the smokers) to pay for the health care of poor people and people who can afford to pay for their own heath care is not an authorized function of the government. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Travel Illinois

Save on Bloomington Illinois Hotels

DIRECTV Official Site: Illinois