I'm a former walberg staffer, and I must say I can't recall any SCHIP-like programs mentioned once in the campaign. It would have been interesting if it had, and I can understand your concern on this matter.
I am too idealistic to be anyone's staffer. You need to be able to compromise. You need to be practical. These are two things I have difficulty with. Journalism is a good field for me. : )
Back in the debate you mentioned, Schwarz tried using the earmark issue to his advantage, claiming that he would bring home a dollar for every dollar the 7th sends to washington. Tim did claim that not all earmarks were bad and he would bring home some (roads, for example, were mentioned.) But Tim's record has so many "nay" votes against every expanding gov't spending that I'm truly astonished that you are ashamed of him.
A conservative could make an argument that the government has been delegated authority to be involved with the maintenance of roads, specifically interstates. On the other hand, one would be forced to take the socialist interpretation of "general welfare" in order to justify federal involvement in providing health care.
I voted for a conservative who swore to uphold the constitution. SCHIP? $6 mill in federal funds for heating low-income homes? I'm not ashamed; I am frustrated.
You should remember to distinguish between the different versions of the bill. Tim actually voted AGAINST the Dem-passed version of SCHIP and was viciously attacked for "turning his back on those children." He is now being targeted by the dems as they seek a veto override. He has called the dem version "a disaster," and I have no doubt his vote will remain a resounding "no."
Yes, you are correct to say that there are two versions of the bill. He supported keeping SCHIP as it was rather than bloating the program with even more nonsensical spending. But what does this prove? Very little, and quite a bit....
Little: Partisan politics 101. It is a Dem bill. Bush has promised to veto and Walberg already swore allegiance to the President's agenda.
Quite a bit: While he believes that the Dems are blowing past the "original intent" of the initial bill, he still maintains that "providing health insurance for children who otherwise cannot afford it is an endeavor worthy of the resources and time of the US Congress."
Original intent? Why should ANYONE care about the original intent of this welfare bill when even the constitutionalist Walberg evidently has little interest for the original intent of the Constitution? Worthy of time and resources? Article and section, please. I hear "General Welfare" clause in the distance, and it is standing at the top of the liberal's slippery slope.
Best VIDEO uve done ever - havent watched all your videos stay in politics , get out of religion - lol you know nothing about religion but politics hey , your one of us question are you for legalizing drugs? This is the deciding factor here answer wisely :P lol
I am for decriminalizing them. Legalizing them would place them under FDA oversight. It would also allow the civil government to regulate it in ways much like tobacco and alcohol. This would require licensing both for production and distribution. Not good. Decriminalization is the way to go.
I'm a former walberg staffer, and I must say I can't recall any SCHIP-like programs mentioned once in the campaign. It would have been interesting if it had, and I can understand your concern on this matter.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Let it be known:
1. I still like Walberg
2. I still pray for Walberg
3. I still plan to vote for his re-election
I am too idealistic to be anyone's staffer. You need to be able to compromise. You need to be practical. These are two things I have difficulty with. Journalism is a good field for me. : )
paleocrat 4 years ago
Back in the debate you mentioned, Schwarz tried using the earmark issue to his advantage, claiming that he would bring home a dollar for every dollar the 7th sends to washington. Tim did claim that not all earmarks were bad and he would bring home some (roads, for example, were mentioned.) But Tim's record has so many "nay" votes against every expanding gov't spending that I'm truly astonished that you are ashamed of him.
labulldog5 4 years ago
A conservative could make an argument that the government has been delegated authority to be involved with the maintenance of roads, specifically interstates. On the other hand, one would be forced to take the socialist interpretation of "general welfare" in order to justify federal involvement in providing health care.
I voted for a conservative who swore to uphold the constitution. SCHIP? $6 mill in federal funds for heating low-income homes? I'm not ashamed; I am frustrated.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You should remember to distinguish between the different versions of the bill. Tim actually voted AGAINST the Dem-passed version of SCHIP and was viciously attacked for "turning his back on those children." He is now being targeted by the dems as they seek a veto override. He has called the dem version "a disaster," and I have no doubt his vote will remain a resounding "no."
labulldog5 4 years ago
Yes, you are correct to say that there are two versions of the bill. He supported keeping SCHIP as it was rather than bloating the program with even more nonsensical spending. But what does this prove? Very little, and quite a bit....
paleocrat 4 years ago
Little: Partisan politics 101. It is a Dem bill. Bush has promised to veto and Walberg already swore allegiance to the President's agenda.
Quite a bit: While he believes that the Dems are blowing past the "original intent" of the initial bill, he still maintains that "providing health insurance for children who otherwise cannot afford it is an endeavor worthy of the resources and time of the US Congress."
paleocrat 4 years ago
My problem is with the "Quite a Bit."
Original intent? Why should ANYONE care about the original intent of this welfare bill when even the constitutionalist Walberg evidently has little interest for the original intent of the Constitution? Worthy of time and resources? Article and section, please. I hear "General Welfare" clause in the distance, and it is standing at the top of the liberal's slippery slope.
paleocrat 4 years ago
spank 'em... i like it
zomgFletch 4 years ago
Best VIDEO uve done ever - havent watched all your videos stay in politics , get out of religion - lol you know nothing about religion but politics hey , your one of us question are you for legalizing drugs? This is the deciding factor here answer wisely :P lol
creedgaming 4 years ago
I am for decriminalizing them. Legalizing them would place them under FDA oversight. It would also allow the civil government to regulate it in ways much like tobacco and alcohol. This would require licensing both for production and distribution. Not good. Decriminalization is the way to go.
Good book: Legalize This! by Douglas Husak
paleocrat 4 years ago
Hey u won me over :-) on Politics :) ,
now if you would understand athiesm ,
wed be on the same page :)
creedgaming 4 years ago