S-CHIP Watch: Newsweek goes nutroots, Pelosi blames “hate radio,” Mikulski barks at Rush; Update: Bush addresses S-CHIP, Dems trot out…singer Paul Simon; Update: MoveOn cashes in its S-CHIP; Update: House Democrats warm up; Update: Republicans to introduce S-CHIP alternative
Update 10:45pm Eastern. Rob Bluey reports:
As Democrats stage the ultimate political stunt Thursday with an override vote of President Bush’s SCHIP veto, Republicans are actually planning to do something about saving the children’s health care program.
Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) will join Reps. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), Tom Price (R-Ga.), Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) to introduce an alternative to the Democrats’ $35-billion expansion. The lawmakers plan an afternoon news conference in the Capitol around the time of the veto vote.
Their alternative, based on a proposal crafted by the Heritage Foundation, consists of three elements:
1) A full reauthorization of SCHIP. The program would continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level;
2) A child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the legislation advances tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level; and
3) A health care “federalism” initiative. This piece would complement both the reauthorization and the tax changes in expanding health care coverage, and would encourage even more dramatic health care experimentation at the state level with different approaches to coverage expansion.
Update 9:21pm Eastern. House Democrats are warming up for the veto override vote tomorrow. There are three Dems on the floor right now forming an echo chamber. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz boils down the “debate:”
“It’s who’s for kids versus who stands with the President.”
File under “Death of the Grown-up,” Part 99,999.
Interestingly, one of the Democrats on the floor says blatantly that their fight is indeed about getting government-subsidized health insurance for the middle-class. He said it several times.
After degenerating into a Democrat jokefest about their baseball teams, GOP Rep. Steve King–adult–takes the floor. “What they’re not saying is that the question is: ‘Are we going to lay down the cornerstone for socialized medicine or not?’”
Update 8:20pm Eastern. Here’s my chat with John Gibson this evening about S-CHIP and some choice words from Allahpundit to top it off.
Update 1:15pm Eastern. Well, well. Read this: MoveOn Threatens Republicans With New SCHIP Ads.
And now read this fund-raising letter from the MoveOn thugs cashing in on S-CHIP (via S.M.)…
From: Noah T. Winer, MoveOn.org Political Action mailto:moveon-help@list.moveon.org
Sent: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:46:30 -0400
Subject: Meet BethanyWe’re down to the wire on kids’ health care—a few votes away from victory. USAction is highlighting one of the best reasons to override Bush’s veto—Bethany, a 2-year-old girl who might not be here today without SCHIP. Click below to see the ad—it’s powerful—and donate $25 to get a 30-second version on the air.
Contribute NowDear MoveOn member,
We’re just a few votes short of overriding President Bush’s veto and allowing millions of kids to see a doctor when they’re sick. The vote is tomorrow.1 It’s time to pull out all the stops.
We need to remind Republicans there will be dramatic consequences if they stand with Bush on this one. The consequences aren’t just political: this means real health problems for millions of real kids.
One of those kids is Bethany, a 2-year-old girl born with a heart defect who’s only healthy today because of the SCHIP children’s health program. Our friends at USAction put together an ad with her story, and we want to raise money to tell that story in the districts of representatives who vote wrong.
Our goal is to raise at least $200,000 today to run the ad. Can you chip in $25? Our ad will be a slightly shorter version of the video you can see by clicking here—you should check it out:
The more we raise today, the more members of Congress will think twice about our ad campaign before they vote.
Bethany Wilkerson was born with several holes in her heart. Her family lives in St. Petersburg, Florida, on an annual income of $34,000—not poor, but unable to afford private health insurance. Even if they could, Bethany’s “pre-existing condition” makes it impossible to qualify. Only because of SCHIP is Bethany healthy today.
With children’s lives hanging in the balance, this is a politically risky vote for Republicans, and they’re watching public reaction closely to decide what to do. We’re announcing our ad to the local press in the districts of our top targets. No member of Congress will be able to vote against our kids without knowing they will be held accountable by voters.
But this isn’t just about scaring Congress into voting the right way. Some people will vote wrong, and it’s critically important to let their constituents know they abandoned our kids.
At last night’s vigils, we lit candles for the millions of children who are one vote away from having health insurance. Here are a few of your highlights:
Chanting, connecting with others, and responding to MANY supportive honks from passing drivers.—Margaret N., East Lansing, MI
Having children deliver hand written message to the congressman’s office.—Jim G., Chico, CA
We started the action in the wind and rain with candles blowing out immediately. Mid-way through a magnificent rainbow appeared and grew brighter. At the end the sun was shining. —Judy T., Lopez Island, WAPresident Bush vetoed SCHIP because it’s such a successful public program—and the right-wing’s ideology is about running the government into the ground to keep it from serving the common good. But children’s health care has so much popular support that Bush’s supporters are paying a heavy political price for defending this failed ideology.
Together—with phone calls, rallies, vigils, letters, and TV ads—we can make the political price too high for opponents of children’s health care to stomach.
Can you contribute $25 to pressure House members to override Bush’s veto of children’s health care? Click here:
Thank you for all you do.
–Noah, Adam G., Jennifer, Carrie, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007Source:
1. “Poll Reflects Republican Divisions on SCHIP,” NPR, October 17, 2007http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3060&id=11416-7005627-DY4c2t&t=4
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Update 11:25am Eastern. Bush briefly addressed S-CHIP at his morning press conference, noting that he supports covering 500,000 children who are eligible for the current program and questioning the creeping entitlement in states where more adults than children are now covered by S-CHIP. Bush complains that “we weren’t dialed in” on the legislative process. Reporters whining about lack of bipartisanship. “Isn’t it your responsibility to work with Congress to make sure you don’t get to the veto point?” And I’m so sure the White House press corps would hammer a Democrat president with the same indignant question.
Last Bush comment on S-CHIP: “I don’t like plans that encourage people to move from private plans to the public. And that’s what that bill would do.”
Meanwhile, the Dems traded in tots for singer Paul Simon, who called President Bush’s veto, what else, “a heartless act:”
***
Several readers e-mailed to inform me that I’ve earned a down arrow from the “Conventional Wisdom” charters at Newsweek.
Or is it KOSweek now?
***
Meanwhile, doing her own best Kossified Kabuki act, Nancy Pelosi lashed out at “hate radio” in advance of Thursday’s S-CHIP veto override vote. Amanda Carpenter reports:
This reporter asked Pelosi “Is it appropriate for opponents of SCHIP expansion to openly question the circumstances that led some children to become spokespeople for that expansion?”
Pelosi replied that she “would not censor” critics and “I can’t control what they have to say,” but much of it was “beneath the integrity of the debate.”
She classified many of the “attacks that impugn children” as coming from “hate radio.”
Are our questions and arguments “beneath the integrity of the debate?” Impossible. The “integrity of the debate” hit rock-bottom last night with Olbermann goading the Frost family to post photos of their children in their hospital beds after their horrible accident in order to score cheap political points.
Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski played Pelosi’s mini-me and piled on Rush Limbaugh. He’s laughing out loud:
I’m not mad. This is parallel universe time like it’s never been. The other side does not want to get it right. This is a great illustration, folks, of what they use the media monopoly for. They have their narratives; they have their templates. The truth is the most inconvenient thing to them. Fiction is what they need to survive, and in order to sell and peddle fiction, you need a monopoly and they don’t have their monopoly anymore, but they’re still peddling their fiction and they don’t understand how it is destroying them and discrediting them — and, for that, ladies and gentlemen, I celebrate, and I say, “I’m happy,” because it’s succeeding.
Indeed. But don’t take it for granted. Call your congressman and make your voice heard.
Capitol switchboard - 202-224-3121.
House Republican Leader John Boehner:
(202) 225-6205 phone
(202) 225-0704 fax
***
More:
- My column today - Slick S-CHIP sanctimony
- Catholic United’s deceitful S-CHIP ads
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- More on S-CHIP : The American Pundit
- The aftermath of the SCHIP debate… « Cowardly political musings…
- Health Care BS
- JABbering Stooge :: The side of the S-CHIP debate Stalkin’ Malkin doesn’t want you to know about :: October :: 2007
- Bill's Bites
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » Democrats beat up Graeme Frost
- Republicans Introduce SCHIP Alternative : The American Pundit
- Links Today « I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err
- House to Vote on Overriding SCHIP Veto « Morning Coffee
- October, 2007 Archive « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Graeme Frost
JustOneMinute
» David Gregory To Host Meet The Press (While Hiding From It)
Belmont Club
» A self-made hellHotline On Call
» Obama Records Radio Ad For LA House Hopeful
Congrats on the “down” arrow; that’s as sure a sign as any you’re doing something right.
Hate radio? What is this, 1994 all over again?
Please people, get a new playbook already.
My first response to Newsweek’s gesture was indignation and disgust, until I read
and realized how true that is. Still, this should not go unchallenged. If the MSM had done the digging it took you, MM, to do, they’d realize the only “sick” that needed to be cured was their own laziness.
The truth shall set you free!!!!
Go girl go! God knows and so do we which way the arrow really is to go for you. The real down arrow is Newsweek’s credibility, readership and morality.
??Parallel universe??. ??media monoplly?? He’s right. We don’t live in the same world. I’m not sure where his world is located though ‘cuz the USA I live in certainly doesn’t have any media monopoly. From what he said, I can see that he’s unaware of those little television networks ABC, NBC and CBS, and their political leanings.
There’s still a Newsweek?
Actually, I’d feel pretty good if the same people who rated Hillary and the Goracle a thumbs up gave me a thumbs down. The thing that sticks in your craw is the blatant ignorance and/or dishonestly that led them to their conclusions.
The dumbing-down continues. The feckless democrats can’t win arguments based on logic or common sense so they conscript poster-children, LITERALLY, in order to bolster their flaccid positions. And after seeing all these powdered and primped prigs of protestation, I can only conclude that no amount of pre-positioning can enliven these doltish drones.
From DesertLover’s Dictionary:
Democrap … the party of victimization based on inconvenient truth
Michelle,
Obviously throwing out the facts to the Liberals only enrages them. Keep up the good work in confounding the enemy with facts and reason instead of their rampant emotion.
Congratulations Michelle on the down arrow from a liberal piece of crap like newsweek. I think you have just won your “Nobel Peace Prize” rock on……
And the propaganda machine continues to keep on rolling……. When will America wake up and realize the game these
DemocratsInsane-o-crats are playing?I literally don’t understand how they are still a legitimate political party. I mean who in their right mind can’t see through the lies and spin that they throw out there on every critical issue that comes up?? And even worse, there are actually morons that listen to them debate and say “Yes! Thats who I want running our country. Bravo!”
INSANE!
I think the original tack this site used (assuming the Frosts were lying about their income/means and were actually rich) is what the majority of critics find fault with.
When that failed, the argument simply changed from “are the needy at all?” to “are they needy enough?” without any sort of acknowledgement that there was a rush to judgement.
That is the real question. Lets all remember that what Bush vetoed was a bill to expand health care to people whose house hold income is $80,000 per year and include children until age 25. Its a ridiculous proposal that would have basically moved us about two thirds of the way towards nationalized health care.
Newsweak? Who reads that liberal doggerel anymore?
If you get an ‘up’ arrow from them, it means at least tacit approval, right?
I’d rather have a ‘down’ arrow from them, then!
You get two thumbs up from me, Michelle - when you throw a stone into a pack of wild dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit - and you’ve been scoring a lot of direct hits lately!
Watershed: No suprise here - I disagree with the premises of your post as I don’t think the actual historical facts of the discussion support your conclusion, however I will let your statements stand for a moment. I’ve been thinking about your position on this issue though over the past day or so. My question to you - is there any level of sacrifice which the Frosts should make? If so, what level is it?
Liberals, when confronted with facts that don’t line up with their agenda, will try to “jam” whoever disagrees. From man made global warming to border security the Left uses personal attacks to cloud the central issue every time.
“Knowledge of facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result the man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark.”
watershed, with so much riding on S-CHIP, why do you think it is wrong of our conservative hostess to decide to “not work in the dark?” Why is that inherently wrong?
The stridency of the Leftist Pansy Brigade seems to be reaching a crescendo.
It’s hard to imagine that they can continue to ratchet up this level of phoney baloney Bull S*it for another 13 months leading up to the election.
The silver lining is that they continually expose themselves to be nothing more than limp wristed idiots.
And heaven forbid, but if push comes to shove, it won’t be a very lengthy or vaunting task.
#17
I have said this on record many times. I think a family should keep their house, especially after a tragic accident. Many here on this site do not. Schip was implemented in order to prevent a family from having to make huge personal and financial decisions like that, and I support it.
My original post stands. There were many assumptions that the Frosts were lying. There were assumptions about their school and their house. Those were debunked.
This whole issue - “Shall we debate facts and logic, or whether Michelle Malkin is a great, big meanie?” - is such a perfect demonsration of what underlies much leftist behavior.
Rush is correct in his assessment; I’d just phrase it differently to say that when you are effectively living a lie - you lie about yourself to yourself, you collectively breathe the lies of your ideological fellow-travelers whose exhale you inhale, and you lie to others about who you are and what you want - then the objective truth isn’t just inconvenient, it must be fought.
Picture diminutive Michelle watching the naked emperor that is S-CHIP parading past and saying, “Look! - The emperor has no clothes!”
Then, imagine what the reaction toward Michelle would be of the ones who sold the emperor on his “new clothes.” Imagine further what their response would be toward anyone saying, “Hey - she’s right!”
The predicament of the modern-day Democrat Party leadership is no different from the emperor’s fraudulent retainers:
- To preserve their power, status and influence, both need other people to unquestioningly accept “The Narrative” over what they can see with their own eyes; and
- Both will relentlessly and viciously attack anyone who threatens to expose them for what they are doing.
To Democrats, “Live the Fantasy” isn’t just an old perfume ad jingle. It’s a Mission Statement. Threaten to unravel the very fabric of their “reality-based community,” and expect them to fight as if you present an existential threat - because in their minds, you do.
#19
I disagree with your premise. I think that accepting hearsay as fact (that original freeper post), and making assumptions about a family’s financial situation by going on a quick drive past a house is “working in the dark”.
Watershed…you did not answer the question. I didn’t ask if you think they should keep their house. Can you find that question asked? I asked about what level of sacrifice.
#24
That is the level. I think they should not have to make huge financial and personal changes by selling off their assets in order to get healthcare. That is what schip is for.
I am not ignoring the question.
watershed
The deal is this..
In the past 3-5 years our economy has been full bore and this child’s father could not work full time?
I will not work my ass off to support someone else’s medical expenses when they themselves do not have the fortitude to get up and go to work.
This isn’t about “income/means” it is about personal responsiblity and when does that end and the government take over.
I can’t believe you think that is an answer. You didn’t say what they should do - you said what they shouldn’t do.
Let me give you an example of your answer. How should I train for the marathon? You should not dig ditches because that will make your shoes muddy which will slow you down.
sorry all - #27 was directed at #25
#27
If they didn’t have schip, what would be the outcome? What would they have to do? What sacrifices would they have to make?
I have said many times that that outcome (which would most definitely involve selling off their assets) is unacceptable, and I support schip.
I honestly don’t know what else you are trying to ask.
Absolute projection from Barbara Mikulski. This is what the left does best, and the reason to be proud of the down arrow from Newsweak.
I love how the MSM and the left keep repeating that MM et al are ‘attacking children’.
No one is attacking ‘the children’. What is being questioned is the responsibility of the parents in these ‘poster’ situations for their own personal, financial, insurance situations.
The Frost Family Parents made business and personal financial decisions which resulted in them having no health insurance. With 4 Children, that is a bit irresponsible, in my opinion.
I have ONE child - and was uninsured until I found out the my then-wife was pregnant. I IMMEDIATELY searched for and found a job that provided health insurance so that, God-Forbid, anything bad happened, we’d be ok. THAT is the responsible thing to do.
As for this new family - the Mother stated that she had a job that offered medical coverage, but left it because it was ‘unmanageable’, I believe were her words - and then got pregnant. How many people sit in jobs they don’t care for in order to get the benefits? PLENTY!
The children’s pain and suffering is a non-issue because we ALL feel bad for them. The same goes for the pain & suffering the parents went through because of it.
That does not eliminate the poor choices made by these grown-ups BEFORE these medical incidents occured.
But those choices are not what the liberals wish to talk about - instead they show pictures of these kids in hospital beds and wag their fingers at the right and say, “How can you attack this child?”
THAT is not honest debate about the issue at hand. THAT is using children as shields AGAINST debate.
And THAT is the Liberal Democratic Party.
watershed, let’s not go backwards and let’s not be disingenious either. You question the reporting style of our hostess, yet here you are…
You know what the facts are and you electing to evade the question.
And one more thought:
It’s unthinkable that the party that supports partial-birth abortion accuses anyone of ‘attacking’ or ‘not caring about’ the children.
They have no shame.
I quit reading Newsweek and Time years ago because of obvious bias. Now it seems they don’t care if they are not objective. It is so blatant. I predict in the future the government will want to control all media similar to the old Soviet Union. Obviously the MSM doesn’t care for the real truth or diversity of thought in their views.
I quit reading Newsweek and Time years ago because of obvious bias. Now it seems they don’t care if they are not objective. It is so blatant. I predict in the future the government will want to control all media similar to the old Soviet Union. Obviously the MSM doesn’t care for the real truth or diversity of thought in their views.
We are about 1/3 of the way way down the slippery slope of the government “protecting” everyone from failure or disaster whether it was brought on by our own failure or not.
Add to that Jessica’s law. In most instances it was a democrat who was hindering the law from being passed.
When did any of us “attack” the children?
We questioned their parents’ choices, finances, and business practices.
Not the kids.
Yes, it’s always ‘for the children’ unless a woman wants to have her child aborted. Then the child is a ‘choice’…funny how it’s not a ‘choice’ to own three cars and not purchase health insurance.
#32
What question? Your “working in the dark” analogy? I answered that.
This only proves that Media Matters is still handing out the talking points. Nobody attacked the “12 year old”. They questioned decisions made by his parents, which may be the 12 year olds they are talking about.
There were two questions…oh nevermind…
I know the answer…
watershed: When you can’t answer a simple question as to what level of sacrifice you would find satisfactory - only what level you don’t, it’s very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Then you have the audacity to project that we are mean. I’m not concerned here with outcomes of whether or not they had schip or whether or not eggs for breakfast.
When we “accuse” liberals of changing the subject - there is a reason for that accusation. My training for the marathon example of your answer stands.
I demand that Newsweek give me a down arrow.
They should never have been in the program in the first place. If a family has the money to afford to buy a 3000 sq ft house, investment property and 3 cars for 2 drivers then they have the money to buy health insurance. It came down to a choice. They chose to buy those things and not health insurance. They could have bought a smaller house, one less car and less or no investment property but they did not, they placed lifestyle above the care of the children.
It is not my responsiblity or the governments to save people from their own irresponsiblity. They made the choice. Choices have consequences no matter how much some people would wish otherwise. If you make the choice not to be responsible for your family before trouble happens then yes you should be made to be responsible afterwards.
They do not need a 3000 sq ft house fo their family so yes they should sell it and move into a smaller one to pay for their own irresponsibility. No one is asking them to become destitute. They could live easily in a 2000 sq ft house. The couple that my parents bought their house from had 3 children and the house was only 1600 sq ft.
The bottom line is you make sacrifices for your family if you are a responsible person. Either up front by scaling back your lifestyle to make sutre your family is insured or after the fact by scaling back your lifestyle to pay your bills.
This is becoming a circular argument.
Libs: You are attacking this poor family.
Repubs: I question whether or not this family should be the poster child for SCHIP. Considering the fact that they have benefited from the program.
Libs: So,you don’t think this family should have SCHIP.
Around and around we go…
#42
Why don’t you tell me what you want to hear?
I think this family makes sacrifices. They have 4 kids who go to school. They have a house they pay for. They have jobs, and have attempted, in the great American way, to start a business.
They aren’t two layabouts who decided to just jerk around.
Is that an answer?
The choices you make in life matter.
We have millions of young women deciding to get have children without a father or an income to support them and our culture encourages this behavior. There is no stigma anymore about having children without fathers, in fact, we see many examples of young girls with multiple children from different fathers.
It is a selfish choice; one that involves little else than the immediate need or want of the parent and nothing to do with wanting to insure the future of a culture. Our entertainment industry encourages such behavior with it’s sexually promiscuous movies, music and behavior.
There is a decided difference in someone whose life takes a turn for the worse and needs support and help to get on their feet, and someone who just decides they will continue to have children regardless of their ability to care for them. If government has any place in this, it should be to encourage individuals to be responsible parents and take charge of their own life.
Sadly, it is the children and their future and the future of the country that is effected the most.
#45
If you read any interviews with the Frosts, they went on the radio as an example of the SUCCESS of schip, and that, as successful, it should be expanded.
There’s no circular argument here.
I just wrote Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Cardin in Maryland… She, Mikulski, needs to keep quiet.
Private citizens have free speech and this should not be discussed on the Senator Floor.
It’s alarming …
Rusho, Code Pink, ANSWER and Phelps have free speech.
What a wonderful country.
Expanded to whom? Oh its plenty circular.
What qualifies this family as being in need of my support and where do I go when I can’t afford my home because the government has taken it all? It’s backdoor socialism and want no part of it.
Watershed is the perfect example of how the democrats/liberals think, speak and act.
“This is so, because I say it’s so. Never mind the facts, never mind what questions I may be asked, never mind what my opponent may really say.
“The facts are what I say they are, the questions are what I want them to be, and my opponents say what I want them to have said.
“And when I’m losing the debate, I’ll resort to crying about how I’m being called names and excoriated just because I’m a liberal.”
Nothing new here folks. Nothing to see. Move along . . . Move along.
How fitting, I received this in my inbox…
Health insurance for less than a latte a day.*
http://success.salliemae.com/redirect.asp?code=000355
Watershed #46: Uh no - that is not an answer.
As I’ve stated before - we obviously speak a different version of English and have entirely different versions of logic.
#51
I think I am having a rational debate with some other posters on thsi topic. I am not sure what your post has to do with what has been said here.
Why do you not want people to discuss this? I am literally the only person of opposing view on this thread.
#53
Give me an example of what you are trying to get at. seriously. I am curious. I think I have addressed the Frosts, schip, and sacrifice adequately. What am i missing?
It may not be circular, but the logic behind the use of the Frosts in support of their argument (the Dem’s, not yours) is fatally flawed.
Picking someone that is already covered under one set of conditions to argur to cover many others under a vastly expanded set of conditions makes zero sense. It does not advance an argument for expansion - it only validates the existing model.
That would be akin to asking your boss for a promotion and using the fact that you meet the requirements for your present position as the entire basis for your request.
#38
I think the big criticism in the questioning is the hearsay and conjecture this site used as fact.
#56
maybe so. We can disagree on that as well. In think there are other families not covered by insurance who will not qualify for schip, and that is a shame.
However, I am arguing with many posters here who feel that the Frosts should not be covered at all, and that schip be shrunk or even eliminated. That is the topic of many debates I am having.
Something that amazes me about libs…the complete inability to learn.
Please show me any successful socialist system anywhere. There aren’t any. But the libs want that for here. I guess they believe they are smarter somehow than all those who have tried it in the past (or are currently trying it).
And the unthinking masses (some of whom even visit this blog) swallow it hook line and sinker.
Let’s trot out some inner city children condemned to the local public schools and make some commercials about merit pay and vouchers. Watch the Left gauge out their eyes.
REALITY CHECK:
DOWN arrow - Newsweek circulation
DOWN arrow - number of pages in Newsweek
DOWN arrow - Newsweek employee headcount
DOWN arrow - morale at Newsweek office
UP arrow - amount of talk around Newsweek water cooler about looking for another job
UP arrow - Michelle Malkin popularity
UP arrow - Michelle Malkin traffic
#59
A broad brush statement about the lack of learning ability of ALL liberals. And then I get flamed as a whiner for saying that people on this site unfairly view liberals! Incredible.
#59conservativesRus, Isn’t that the definition of insanity? doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
People, People. That is NOT a down arrow. You have to turn the page around to read it peoperly.
When are you all going to figure out how to read that rag?
Gesh.
Yes they did jerk around. When they chose a lifestyle they could not afford over taking care of the family in an emergency they jerked around. And yes they chose a lifestyle they could not afford because they had to do without health insurance to live that lifestyle. They decided to live the way they wanted and assumed that if trouble happened the government was responsible for bailing them out.
When you have family responsibilities you don’t always have the choice to do what you want. He may have wanted to start a business but when you have young children that need certain things maybe you don’t get that dream or you postpone that dream for awhile.
At what point was it that we decided to stop taking the responsibility for our own actions? I have always tried to be responsible, and if I make a mistake, accept it, learn from it, and move on.
Rather than accepting blame, it’s always easier to point fingers and accuse others rather than to stand up and be a man(or woman).
I was the oldest child, with 13 brothers and sisters. I don’t ever remember asking anyone for help, nor did my parents. Like any large family, we had issues, but we never once, to the best of my knowledge, blamed someone else for our problems. We had the usual medical things, broken bones, sprains, colds, flu, etc., etc., but somehow we always managed to pay for the treatments ourselves, rather than beg for help from the government.
All I want, and all, I would assume, most of the posters on this site want, is for the government to tend to those issues specifically listed in the constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (preamble)
It might behoove all of us to take time to actually review - that is, read and try to understand - the greatest document ever written by men. As I search through it, I don’t find anywhere that the government is supposed to take care of me, cradle-to-grave.
When I enlisted in the Navy, I had to take an oath - I swore to protect and defend the United States, and its Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
One of the Democrap’s greatest presidents, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, once said: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address, January 20, 1961
He also said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” Sound familiar? There are a lot of nutroots who are believing in myths.
Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Time to get up off the couch, turn off the TV, and do something four your country - and for yourself. Don’t use the children as a shield - stand up on your own two feet.
/end rant
Watershed #55. I’m amazed you can’t think of this yourself - but since you asked, I’ll do a little thinking for you. Should either of the parents get a second job? That might be considered sacrifice. I think it’s been suggested many times here before so I don’t think this one should have been past you but apparently it was. I’ll mention it again. Maybe sell one (or more) of the vehicles. That might be considered a sacrifice. Take the bus. I can assure you the bus will be cheaper than a car (gas, insurance, maintenance, depreciation etc). Maybe not as convenient but certainly cheaper.
For your information….I just ran a little experiment here at work. I asked a 16 year old - “If you had a big expense and your family had to sacrifice to cover the expense - what would you or your mom and dad do”. I know it might amaze you the answer. “Well, they might get another job or they might sell something to pay it”.
The sad thing here is the 16 y/o can’t yet vote and from what I’ve gleened here about you, you can.
Yes Watershed #60 how very observant of you - it is a broad brush statement. It was intended that way. Please debate the substance of the statement.
Why stop at health insurance? I think that legal and accounting services are just as important to my overall well-being. As long as Pelosi and Reid want S-CHIP expanded to more of the middle class, I demand that they include subsidized legal and accounting services - with salary caps on all lawyers and accountants.
IRS forms and regs are making me sick.
#65
I completely disagree. What “lifestyle” do you think they are “jerking around” in? You make it sound like they are having pina coladas on the beach.
And then this site gets upset when critics say you’re attacking the family!
The man took a risk and tried to start a business. This country was MADE on entreprenurial risk. If he were successful, no-one would have said to wait.
Watershed,
How’s this for you . . . you have been asked several times what level of sacrifice should be necessary for the Frost family to make before having to suck at the government trough.
You have “answered” the question by saying “They shouldn’t have to sell their house” (NOTE: Not having to sell your house is NOT a sacrifice) OR you have said, “They make plenty of sacrifice - they work hard, they own a home, they have 4 kids who go to school”. Guess what . . . so do a whole lot of people in this country!
Nothing - in ANY of your responses has answered this simple question: What level of sacrifice should the Frost family have to make before they should qualify for government help?
This means: Sell the large house and acquire a smaller one in order to pay medical bills? Sell an SUV or two and drive economy cars? Enroll the kids in public schools instead of private ones? Sell a minority share of their business in order to raise funds to pay medical bills?
Or do you say “None of the above”? And if so, why would you say so?
And please, no answers about how “I’ve already answered that”, because you haven’t. And no answer that says what you’ve said before about how they do sacrifice - that answer had nothing whatsoever to do with sacrifice. Sacrifice means having to give up something you already have.
If you don’t think they should have to make any sacrifices, then simply say “I don’t think they should have to make any sacrifices” and be done with it. But when you do, DON’T be surprised by the responses you get from the conservatives here. Quite frankly, it is inconceivable to most conservatives that a person would choose not to attempt to take care of themselves and their family. In fact, to most conservatives, the behavior you seem to find acceptable (i.e., a family with some means that could liquidate some cash assets in order to pay their own bills that chooses instead to seek government assistance) is abhorrant.
Now please. Stay on this topic. Address the question, which is What level of sacrifice is appropriate for the Frost family? Please do not misquote me (as you so often did on the last thread) and do not stray from this question.
#68
The “substance” of a whitewashing of every American liberal as unable to learn? There is none. It’s a slur.
When the Democrats foisted the Frosts as their war banner for SCHIP expansion, the circumstances of the Frost family became very relevant.
I have not seen anyone here attack a 12 year old. I have not seen anyone here that would deny someone who needed it a hand up (not a hand out).
With 3 new cars, 4 children in an expensive private school and a 3000 square foot home, the Frosts have elected to live a caviar lifestyle on a tuna fish budget. Their living standards are akin to those who have incomes into six figures, not for a family living on $45,000 a year.
It was horrible what happened to the children, and they received SCHIP funds for their medical and recovery expenses. But, what this comes down to as stated many times is the issue of personal responsibility and choices every family makes. Is the American taxpayer expected to subsidize someone that lives well beyond their means and ignores fails to obtain one of today’s basic necessities, health insurance, because there is no money left after the car, house, business property and school payments?
If you recall, with welfare reform under Reagan, the goal was to reform welfare as a program to help people in times of need, not to maintain a lifestyle of need.
I think you are all wasting your time with watershed. He obviously believes the family should make no concrete sacrifices whatsover, whether it is selling part of their business, second job, less cars etc… What is important is they FEEL bad and in a liberal mind this is all that is required.
Incredible leap of logic that I mean they were sipping Pina Colodas on a beach. I said no such thing. Your lifestyle is simply how you choose to live your life.
Very simple watershed, a 3000 sq ft home, 3 cars and investment property. That is the lifestyle they were living. They chose to buy those things, that is how they chose to live their lives, hence the lifestyle they chose. They chose to live beyond their means.
Question, why would any responsible adult choose to have all that, when they could get by with less and still live comfortably, and yet not buy health insurance?
jsr,
You are correct. However after having the same, basic, frustrating type of exchange with watershed in the previous thread on this topic, my own personal decision was to pose the topic to him in language so clear, so explicit, that anything he did besides plainly answering the question would definitively show him to be nothing more than a troll.
On the other hand, should he choose to actually answer the question, it could possibly open up a line of legitimate debate.
But I doubt it.
#74 JSR - I agree - however we have to realize watershed is not alone. There are far far far too many who use the same feel good irresponsible logic (or lack thereof) to go about their daily lives. It’s really unfortunate that our founding fathers were not able to make it so only those invested in the outcome of our society could choose the leaders and policies.
As if tweaking their logo, and the look of their magaizine is really going to bring in new readers when the contents and their liberal slant is still ever present. Getting bad marks from Newsweek is a badge of honor for conservatives. Wear it proudly Michelle. Don’t stop doing what you do so well Michelle, providing the information that the MSM doesn’t want us to hear.
Now if you are one of those New England Blue Noses I have to question your sanity over wanting government control of healthcare. A part of a recent study of healthcare reveals this.
So to Medicare receipients in the Northeast with your great progressive attitudes ‘ya might want to rethink that whole gubmint healthcare, ‘ya hear.
#71
Your dripping condescension makes it difficult to answer you, and I have proven no similar rudeness to anyone here, but here goes.
“They make plenty of sacrifice - they work hard, they own a home, they have 4 kids who go to school”. Guess what . . . so do a whole lot of people in this country!
Yes, and medical costs and insurance costs are out of reach for many of those people. (Is that under debate, that med costs and insurance costs are exorbitantly expensive? Hopefully not.) They all can use the help, if they need it.
This means: Sell the large house and acquire a smaller one in order to pay medical bills? Oh God, I think I am gonna say “I answered this,” but I answered this. No.
Sell an SUV or two and drive economy cars? No. That is what Schip is for. So you don’t have to sell off your assets. I also think that would make no difference in their situation.
Enroll the kids in public schools instead of private ones? Strawman. Their school is under scholarship, and they pay next to nothing. So no. (This whole misconception is why everyone thinks this site is “swiftboating” the Frosts. It’s like WMD level, almost!
Sell a minority share of their business in order to raise funds to pay medical bills? sell off their business? An apparently not too successful business? They make 50 grand a year total, man. Will that help? And as entrepreneurs, should they hurt their future options of potential success? No.
I think this family has the right to remain modestly stable after a tragic accident.
I have to go teach for awhile. I will be back for the pile on later!
It’s soooo inspiring to know that my hard-earned tax dollars went to pay for the Frosts medical bills. Even though my house is half his size, I have one less car than him (no SUV’s either), and my kids attend public school.
If I had medical bills I couldn’t pay, my wife would go back to work or I’d get a second job. Not rely on the government and other tax-payers to support my medical options so that I can maintain my luxurious lifestyle.
I guess the Frosts’ (and Watershed) think that it’s their ‘right’ to have me pay for thier bills, just because they have children and are running their own business.
Life must sure be good for those people who don’t feel the need to be responsible for their own extravagence.
#77 As far as “….more valuable than the principle”. That will be way mis-interpreted - but your statement is exactly correct. The principle is responsible behavior. I think any observant parent will tell you that sometimes you have to let “bad” things occur to a child (ie consequences) to have them learn proper safety, ways of doing things, behavior, etc. Some children even learn from the experiences of others. Apparently though, far too many think that somehow they are smarter than “the way things work” and can violate the relationship of actions result in consequences.
My oh my!
Anybody remember the story about the ant and the grasshopper?
…and as we all know:
Hate speech is not Free Speech
Oh my goodness…Watershed is a teacher. Heaven help us.
Watershed-
I think I speak for everyone when I say that you are dangerously misguided.
Actually Watershed being a teacher explains lots. Depending on where he teaches it’s at least somewhat likely he’s on the public dole already (ie his salary comes from the public). Why shouldn’t everybody else be?
Michelle,
You have arrived, the left is spinning on it’s head. I could have told them this would happen. Except the Left doesn’t listen, I think those folks need some anger management. The only book any of them appear to have read cover to cover is, The Prince, they certainly have his principles down.
The Gov’t is not a charity. Their only purpose is to provide for our security and to provide us with infrastructure. Thats about it. Redistributing the money that people have worked so hard to get helps no one. We are not hateful mean hearted souls that don’t want poor people to be given a helping hand in life, but that work is for charitable organizations. NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Even if such programs were run effectively (and common sense tells us that they wouldn’t be; Example: FEMA, Social Security), it will bankrupt our country to try to do so. The charity work needs to be left to charities and Government should be concentrating on the job dictated to them by the Constitution.
My guess: Colorado or California
I need to apologize to any rational reasonable teachers for those comments.
I’d like for every family to remain absolutely stable after a tragic accident (or illness). But is that a right?
Government cannot bestow rights; it can only protect or limit existing rights. Legislation is a tricky thing in that someone has to put down those very specific limits on paper. Is the cutoff $49,999 or $50,000? Is calling Michelle “heartless” any help whatsoever in defining those limits? How about this: anyone who doesn’t support 100 percent free care for anyone in need is heartless and sick.
Its pretty hard to peddle fiction when you have to crawl out from under a rock to do it.
Newsweek is just reproving the conventional wisdom that liberal media bias can’t stand the light of day.
Watershed, I think you’re blinded by your apparent view that everyone deserves to live at whatever luxury level they can attain, no matter the cost to the government or taxpayer. 3 vehicals in any family is a luxury, pure and simple. How can you say that selling a vehical would make no difference in their situation? It either free’s up a monthly payment (a couple hundred bucks a month could’ve gotten them insurance) or it puts a few thousand dollars in their pocket that could be used to pay bills with, not to mention the savings from less insurance and fuel costs.
Growing up, my parents had 6 children and we only had one vehical. A full sized stock Ford van with no carpet or extra’s. It managed to get us all everywhere we needed to go. When we turned 16, we either bought our own car with our own money, or we rode our bikes. When my brother needed surgery at age 5, my Dad didn’t petition the govt. for money, he worked more overtime and my Mom started cleaning houses. Of course they needed a second vehical for that, so they bought a used Chevette, very cheap and fuel efficient. I bought that car from them years later when I turned 16 for around $1500.
If we try to impose fiscal responsibility on the Frosts’ we’re the bad guys, but if the Frosts’ want to impose their lack of fiscal responsibility on us, that’s OK. What a rotten double standard.
I guess I should really save my fingers from all the typing, since no one here will ever change your view of the world because it’s canted to the Left. Kinda’ like Bizarro World.
Boy, I’ll bet Michelle is REALLY losing sleep over this.(please note my sarcasim)
Jah et al - this is precisely why my husband and I (no kids) live in a 2-bedroom house, buy solid yet used cars, and have never taken out a mortgage on our house - even though we have plenty of cosmetic work to do on it. We save our money and spend it on the next project and guess what? Because we don’t have debt nor let our egos get in the way of what we feel we’re “entitled” to as consumers, we have enough money to do what we want; travel, eat at our favorite restaurants, and pay for our medical expenses. In fact, we have a fund that we’ve set aside for just that and I’m using some of that saved money to get some extensive dental work done. When I was single and making $12/hr in the 90’s, I had a medical savings account. It was the smartest thing I ever did. I chose my own doctor and was able to pay for check-ups as well as dental work from a reputable dentist. I never asked the government for a dime. There are a ton of solutions, Watershed, that are much better than going to the government and asking for my money to bail you out of your fiscal irresponsibility. How about making private health care providers available across the country to people so that there is competition driving the prices down? What about medical savings accounts? My husband and I realize that we’re already going to pay the price for the Boomers’ fiscal irresponsibility and that’s yet another reason we’re living within our means. Because the same fiscal clowns won’t do a damned thing about Social Secruriy, my generation is not going to have the choice as to whether we buy 2 brand new cars or have a 3000 sq ft home. We’re not going to be afforded the Frost’s choice in lifestyle.
Okay let’s start a pool. Who will be the conservative pundit of the week to get slimed by the Media Matters next week?
I think the ballot should consist of
Neal Boortz
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Sorry Rush and Michelle have already been award winners so as such they are ineligible to compete for another 30 days.
/Hey you got to have some rules or it just turns into anarchy.
@everyone
watershed can be safely ignored.
back on another thread we learned that watershed feels the kids health isn’t worth hardship on the parent’s part:
We also learned that watershed begins debating the SCHIP program itself instead of the expansion thereof and then pretends that everyone on the thread who argues against SCHIP expansion is arguing against the existance of the progam itself.
We learned that watershed will select a sentence out of a larger argument and only reply to that sentence, ignoring the actual argument.
And we learned that what passes for “compassion” in watershed’s book doesn’t compel any personal action of watershed’s part except for commenting on a blog. “Compassion” on their part compels them only to spend someone else’s money.
Well said, MM!
Watershed,
I think you answer by not answering. Concur with jrl, govtdrone, Rus, et.al.
Basically, you don’t think they should have to make any sacrifice; however, you don’t mind the government make the choice for us (those who oppose schip) to sacrifice (via tax increases) for their poor choices and indiscretions.
Working and paying your bills are not sacrifices. Those are necessities.
What we (conservatives) are concerned about is the slow creep toward socialism. We don’t want socialism, Watershed…if you don’t think that that is the intent of schip, then you’re foolish. We’re trying to help you see behind the “we hate children” mask that Pelosi and her crew parading around in. Then, of course, you may want socialism to take over this country.