Easley unhappy with Bush veto on child health insurance plan

"I think our founding fathers and basic Christian values should compel us as a society to help those less advantaged. " The first half of that sentence is pure fantasy. The rift between the haves and have-nots was far greater at the time of this nation's founding than it is today. The founding fathers were almost ALL of the landed gentry/gentleman farmer and established merchant classes. People such as Adams and Jefferson were fatastically wealthy while the vast majority of Americans were subsistance farmers or small, local businessmen. What our founding fathers did do was establish a system whereby any free-born man COULD succeed if he tried. Subsequent amendments now make it possible for anyone to succeeed if they apply themselves. "Possible" doesn't guarantee success however, so you are always going to have "the haves and the have-nots." We NEED the have-nots to function as a society, but we don't need to breed them through our government economic programs. They do quite well proliferating on their own, without financial incentives. The second half of your sentence is purely your religious-based opinion, and carries no more value in a secular society than anyone's oppposing opinion. Please don't use God to justify picking my pocket. The rhetoric that "the successful have a greater obligation" is pure liberal fantasy, not found in the Bible or the Constitution. Neither Jesus nor Jefferson places a greater responsibility toward our fellow man or nation based upon our net worth. We are ALL supposed to play by the same rules. If you really care about the betterment of society, stop handing out free steamed grouper with a shrimp and mussel wine sauce (the equivalent of paying insurance premiums for children in families collecting $83k a year) and teach them to fish! Our established system is failing as we drift further toward Sesame Street Socialism. We need to stop insulating people and families from the consequences of their actions, and start letting people manage their own lives. I give away a large sum of money every year to people who are trying to better themselves responsibly AND demonstrably. The "Woe is me" crowd gets nothing from me beyond what Uncle Robin Hood takes.

"I suppose it would have been better left alone so women would have never had the vote, African-Americans never had gotten their freedom, etc." Maybe you should read the Constitution, in particular, the pre-amble. Those admendments established justice for all... "I have a bachelor's degree." In what...philosophy or some other degree that does not contribute to society? "I have empathy for others and aspire to loftier ambitions than turning my nose up at others." You went from discussing this child insurance program to your own problems regarding your parents...ok then. People who openly state they have made good decisions are like an alcoholic who denies they have an addiction problem... My point was/is...why should I be forced at gunpoint to do give to something that has absolutely nothing to do with me, my family, etc. I am certain that I give more to charities annually than you do. That is in addition to the taxes taken from me for these handout programs. Bottom line...you are jealous of others due to your own personal situation and "want to get even" with the world by forcibly taking money away from those not in your own situation. How many times a day do you say to yourself "It's not fair that I am going through this when Joe Bob is driving his BMW to his business."

Just shut-up!

I am sure that no one has children without believing that they cannot afford them. Most responsible parents like myself will and have worked two and three jobs to make sure that they have EVERYTHING they need. However, one parent families that at some point started off having 2 parents and for whatever reason find themselves over their heads or they get divorced etc. no matter the cause, did not forsee an abrupt change in their lives. Can you honestly sit there and say those children do not deserve any health care simply because their parent's employer does not offer it? So do they just quit any job just to get health coverage, take a cut in pay in addition to the cost of coverage? Pay the outrageous costs of purchasing health care as an individual so that multi-billion dollar insurance companies can get richer? That my friend is the reality!! You are addressing people having children out of wed-lock or having more babies to receive more welfare benefits I am guessing. I have issues with that type of behavior too but there are many good people out there that find themselves in the situations I mentioned before do you just turn your back on them and say tough luck? Surely you cannot be that cold. Wait-a-minute, you are a Republican aren't you? Never mind, I answered my own question.

Take the time to investigate WHY the bill was vetoed. This program is already paying health insurance premiums for children in families making sixty, seventy, even eighty-thousand dollars in some states. The LAST thing we need is to expand it and create another unfunded/under-funded entitlement program. Let me turn your question around - why should other people suffer financially because your brain can't effectively manage your reproductive organs? One would conclude that as a caring, loving parent you would WANT to have "the proper health insurance and fat bank account" BEFORE you brought a child into this world. Of course, that would require responsibility, maturity, and judgment....impossible by today's standards. In lieu of this bill, the government would be far better off funding the program at the level the White House proposes and using the money Congress wants to spend like drunken sailors (buying votes) to fund abortions for the needy, after overturning the Hyde Amendment. After all, since the taxpayers are going to be soaked because of other people's reckless decisions, it would make far more fiscal sense to spend one-thousand dollars rectifying the situation now, than tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars raising the child to adulthood. If we return to offering funded abortions to the poor with the stipulation of a mandatory tubal ligation during the second abortion, we'll start to reap the financial benefits immediately, and see a windfall in fifteen to twenty years. If the politicians were sincere about ending poverty (they're not) they'd stop encouraging the proliferation of poor people by subsidizing their lifestyle.