Apparently he's broadened his hatred from simply "black people" to now hating an entire generation of children from middle-income families... if you believe the bias in Reuters.
The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families, The New York Times reported on Monday.
But what's really going on?
The letter from Dennis Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, set a high standard for states that want to raise eligibility for the program above 250 percent of the poverty level, the Times said.
Before making such a change, Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have "enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level" who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program, the newspaper said.
Administration officials said the changes were aimed at returning the focus to low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said.
So while the move is aimed at helping those most in need and not allowing those who could otherwise afford basic coverage to leech off government freebies, Reuters decided to report this as just another story of Bush hating children.
Rinse and repeat.
Editor's Note (Ken Shepherd): Corrected from earlier revision that attributed article authorship to the Associated Press.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Who comes up with this
August 21, 2007 - 07:59 ET by HelenSWho comes up with this excrement!?
Anybody with synaptic integrity can see that there is an enormous disconnect between the bilge they spew and the way things really are. It is almost scary that they can be caught up in such a maelstrom of vitriol that they are literally oblivious to the truth.
I'm about to be caught up in my own maelstrom over the insanity of these people.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Me again...
August 21, 2007 - 08:05 ET by HelenSI don't know if I saw a spoof on this or read about it somewhere but it seems that I have a scenario in my memory of how things work at the likes of the National Enquirer:
"So, what shall we have on the cover this time...? We had the space alien father of a single mother's curiously formed baby last week. We've done the "Clinton was a Nazi in a former life" story. ....Hmmm... Maybe we can say that Bush hates children. Yeah! That would work!"
These bottom-feeders really think they're legit journalists and they don't even rise to the level of the rag-sheets any more.
It is so disgusting that it is almost off the radar of being anything to worry about any more. They're going to be caricatures of themselves soon and laughing-stocks in the annals of history.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
}}---> Hates kids
August 21, 2007 - 08:21 ET by Cool ArrowNow, if we're talking about a deliberate effort to keep our borders open to child rapers and murderers, and incarcerating border guards for upholding existing legislation, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to deduce all three branches of government hate kids.
Yes, I'm that mad about it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Agree
August 21, 2007 - 08:26 ET by well99Like this country needs to import pedaphiles.We have too many as it is.
Jason, As an attorney I'd
August 21, 2007 - 09:16 ET by LeonJason,
As an attorney I'd expect a much higher attention to lexical detail than you've exhibited in this post.
Don't you think your title is a little cheap? Where in the article does it say GEORGE W. BUSH hates middle class children? In fact, the story doesn't even reference W. as an individual. It simply reference's the administration that works for him, aka the Bush Administration.
So, how did you arrive at your title based on the article you linked? The tone of your headline doesn't really jibe with the article you're addressing.
It depends on what the
August 21, 2007 - 10:49 ET by pbanks7It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Leave it to a lawyer to split hairs on the difference between GWB and his administration.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
}}---> You scared me pbanks
August 21, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Cool ArrowI thought you said "Leave it to a lawyer to spit hairs"
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Incredible Irony
August 21, 2007 - 09:18 ET by BrillianceThey failed to mention that ANY democrat administration would make it extremely difficult to extend LIFE to children (abortion).
We all know how much the media and democrats "care about children" (dripping with sarcasm).
right to life
August 21, 2007 - 10:13 ET by iveseenitallOn O'Reilly last night, that Powers lefty showed her true colors and said that illegals have the RIGHT to break our laws. Isn't ironic, however, that the left doesn't believe that millions of children have a RIGHT TO LIFE.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
}}---> That's just dum!
August 21, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Cool ArrowMeanwhile Mexico keeps troops on its southern border with Guatemala. Wonder what they do with Illegal aliens in Mexico?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Mexican businesses import Guatemalans,
August 21, 2007 - 10:30 ET by RJ...using the same excuses used by businesses in the U.S.
But the Mexican government treats them much more harshly.
Ive, Before Powers became
August 21, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Senior ChiefIve,
Before Powers became Fox news contributor for Bill's show, she was a lefty democrack and it does show her true colors every Monday. Good for this show, because viewers are exposed to the what and how their minds work. Bill's (Rush, Hannity, etc.) job is to hammer lefties as Hillary Rodham's true indentity is exposed.
Expect Hillary to appear in Bill's show soon?....NOT. Even if she wins the WH. So people, we better get busy. I can only say, I'm doing my part at my end. I imagine Hillary Rodham as my CinC! @#$%^&*...Time to retire!
Taxation is a hate crime...
August 21, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Crash... it encourages under achievers.
My son's (14yrs) income was a bit higher than the losers who strive to earn the minimum wage. But, he had to pay taxes at my income bracket (we're on the high end). Who can I blame for that hate?
As Paul Harvey states, "Now the rest of the story!"
August 21, 2007 - 12:51 ET by PawpawNThis is all about the bill some states and the House are trying to pass that will allow families making less than $80,000[yes $80,000] to get free[well you & I pay for it since we are elite sexist Repubs] government & state Health Care. And it would extend to all children in family up to age 25!! Strange how no one does a Paul Harvey anymore and gives us "THE REST OF THE STORY"! Always hated sentences with ... in them, it always means something is left out!!