Our Guv'mint at Work
I just realized something. My representative to congress, Steve King (R-IA), wants it both ways. He wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too. Go figger.
After United States President George Walker Bush, Republican, vetoed giving poor sick children medical help, Representative King stepped forward to defend the President. This in itself is not unusual -- looking at Mr. King's voting record reveals that he votes with the President nearly every single time he casts a vote. What was unusual in this matter is that people in Sioux City gathered outside Mr. King's office in peaceful protest, waving signs with the number of children in Mr. King's district that will be denied health care due to his refusal to stand up for his constituents.
I don't remember the exact quote, but I saw Mr. King on TV saying something like, "just because a bunch of people stand on the sidewalk with signs doesn't make them right." Mr. King never did talk to the gathered crowd, from what I understand.
The very next day (yesterday) I again saw Mr. King's face on TV. This time he was participating in a demonstration, standing on a sidewalk waving an anti-choice sign. I guess he felt the best way to get his point across was to stand on a sidewalk with a sign... I doubt the irony of this crossed his mind.
But what bothers me MUCH more than his "sidewalk politics" is the overall message Mr. King is sending. He protested abortion, yet voted against health care for children. So what he's saying to women is basically, "We demand that you have that child, yet we're going to block any legislation that might actually help you raise the child."
I guess it doesn't surprise me that a politician that supports cock fighting is capable of thinking women's rights and children's health are irrelevant.
As a sidebar, I've noticed that the Republicans have avoided rational discussion of SCHIP (health care for poor, sick children) by labeling it "socialized medicine." SCHIP is not "socialized medicine," it's health care for poor sick children.
The Bush administration is against SCHIP on the theory that it may help a few children who are either wealthy or here illegally. So they're not going to help ANY children, rather than run the risk that a fraction of a percentage of the funds may be misused. Here's a question... What would Jesus think if you told him you stood by and let a child die because if you had helped the child you might have, by accident, helped another child as well? I know what my conscience tells me.
After United States President George Walker Bush, Republican, vetoed giving poor sick children medical help, Representative King stepped forward to defend the President. This in itself is not unusual -- looking at Mr. King's voting record reveals that he votes with the President nearly every single time he casts a vote. What was unusual in this matter is that people in Sioux City gathered outside Mr. King's office in peaceful protest, waving signs with the number of children in Mr. King's district that will be denied health care due to his refusal to stand up for his constituents.
I don't remember the exact quote, but I saw Mr. King on TV saying something like, "just because a bunch of people stand on the sidewalk with signs doesn't make them right." Mr. King never did talk to the gathered crowd, from what I understand.
The very next day (yesterday) I again saw Mr. King's face on TV. This time he was participating in a demonstration, standing on a sidewalk waving an anti-choice sign. I guess he felt the best way to get his point across was to stand on a sidewalk with a sign... I doubt the irony of this crossed his mind.
But what bothers me MUCH more than his "sidewalk politics" is the overall message Mr. King is sending. He protested abortion, yet voted against health care for children. So what he's saying to women is basically, "We demand that you have that child, yet we're going to block any legislation that might actually help you raise the child."
I guess it doesn't surprise me that a politician that supports cock fighting is capable of thinking women's rights and children's health are irrelevant.
As a sidebar, I've noticed that the Republicans have avoided rational discussion of SCHIP (health care for poor, sick children) by labeling it "socialized medicine." SCHIP is not "socialized medicine," it's health care for poor sick children.
The Bush administration is against SCHIP on the theory that it may help a few children who are either wealthy or here illegally. So they're not going to help ANY children, rather than run the risk that a fraction of a percentage of the funds may be misused. Here's a question... What would Jesus think if you told him you stood by and let a child die because if you had helped the child you might have, by accident, helped another child as well? I know what my conscience tells me.
posted by Chris the Hippie at
9:18 AM
4 Comments:
It's simple, they are all going to hell.
They force women to have children and then avoid the responsibility of supporting them the same way they support the war, yet refuse to pay as we go, via higher taxes.
What's all this about cake?
I heard that Bush wants to add another 4 Billion to the Schip program, so that the current crop of less fortunate children will get more services. He just didn't want to grow the program to the extent the opposition party wanted to, like giving benefit to age 25, rather than cutting it off at 18.
I'm always for spending less money. We could be taxed 100% of our income to try to pay suffering to go away, and it wouldn't.
As someone who's children benefit from the schip program, I was rather confused by the President's veto. While I don't fully understand the legislation, it seems illogical to destroy it if you are truly interested in helping children.
What I had heard was that the bill was vetoed partially because it would extend benefits to children of families that make up to $80k a year. Trust me, if you have kids, $80k isn't that much, especially when that puts you in a tax bracket that makes any child tax credit you might have qualifed for too small to make any difference.
The two-party system we currently have in place is already flawed (being run by people, this is not suprising, but it's what we've got). It makes it worse when one of the parties goes off the deep end and doesn't even know what it stands for. Pro-life yet anti-child? Makes no sense.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home