I will ,gladly, pay you Tuesday for a Cheeseburger, today!

I read this tread patiently. It seems to me, that the wording "not any of your taxes" would include ANY of my taxes.

How does Winx exclude sales tax from ANY? Obama does not say "not any of your PERSONAL taxes", indeed, he promises not to increase "any of your taxes".

If Obama meant "personal" taxes, then this is a foul. As this would be a foul in any respectful society. If you forgot to add a qualification to your spoken word, you can not turn around later and say "I meant.....". It is too late, you have already lied in your promise.

I see a lot of folks willingly giving Obama a pass on this one, saying that they "personally" understood his promise as this or that.

It doesn't matter how you understood it personally. Since your personal understanding of his word cannot be tried, it is subjective, then it has no meaningful statement.

For example, I can say that I always understood that by those words Obama has meant that he will run with his pants down. So what?

It doesn't matter how I personally understood his message. What matters is what he did, in fact, say as it was witnessed.


If we compare his factual statement "not any of your taxes" with his action (taxes on cigarettes raised), then unless we make this tax "not mine", meaning that you're going to pay it, then he did in fact lied.

Obama did not put the cigarrette tax ball rolling anyway so that cannot be put on his list.

not sure...i posted that definition because I wasn't sure what sin tax fully meant either

Not true. Obama said that it would be the payroll and income taxes that would not be raised for the lower wages.

Does anyone know, as the "sin" tax is normally recommended by lawmakers to help fill the budget gap (per definition posted), how is this done, is it up to the lawmaker's (which lawmaker) discretion? is it picked out of a hat? do they flip a coin???

The SCHIP bill being talked about here was introduced Jan 13, 2009 and signed Feb 4, 2009

Dragoness,

Are you saying I am not quoting correctly?

Or are you disputing the meaning of his words?

Originally created in 1997, CHIP is Title XXI of the Social Security Act and is a state and federal partnership that targets uninsured children and pregnant women in families with incomes too high to qualify for most state Medicaid programs, but often too low to afford private coverage. Within Federal guidelines, each State determines the design of its individual CHIP program, including eligibility parameters, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative procedures.



If I am to be a major contributor (as a smoker) to this program I'd at least want an extra dependent or two - I pay why can't I claim exemptions.

There are several people on this thread that agree with what she said.

That would be of no value to me, unless those people knew what they are talking about.

And, if they in fact did, then they would be able to state their disagreement in less ambiguous terms than "he didn't say that".

If my quote is incorrect, then we can go and get a correct one.
If she doesn't agree with my judgment of his words, then we could look up the definition of "any".

He did not say "any" at any time during his campaign that I heard. He said there would not be tax increases on payroll and income taxes for the lower wages. I have good comprehension for the most part especially when I hear it more than once.

yikes talk about trying to get the last word in

Does it matter whether he said "any" taxes, whether he said "personal" taxes or "any other" taxes????

Point some are making is that the new increase (on smokers for example) is in fact an increase - short and sweet.

Doesn't matter who said it, why they said it, how they said it, what they meant to say, whereever they said it.

An increase in tax is an increase in tax.

Point others are making was that he didnt mention this particular type of tax. I don't think it much matters, as I am and will be affected by this increase, so to me (just my opinion) it really doesn't matter who said it, why they said it, when they said it, how they said it, what they meant to say, whereever they said it.

Pretty soon I shall have to pay it.

there would be no gap ..if they would do their damn job..most of these major problems ..if not all were due to lack of oversight..which makes me ask since AIG didnt get their bonuses why did these a-holes get paid..

their mistakes should not come from our pockets because we already paid enough when we lost our equity in our homes due to lack of oversight..

perhaps if they want the gap in their a$$ filled they should take it out of the trillions of dollars we are on the line for...

Schip has been in the works for quite a while. Bush fought against the raise of the limits on schip. He did not want more kids covered for their medical because it goes against his agenda.

I will not discount others, as you have done, so callously. As if my opinion is the only one that matters.

That made so many people angry!

Me included.

Unless those people knew what they are talking about?

We know what we heard. How does that equate to not knowing what we are talking about?

Sorry!
It was a bipartisan bill!


updated 10:22 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct. 3, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

The White House sought little attention, with Bush casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He was discussing it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa.

Socialized medicine?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Veto override considerations
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/