Now you are talking. I drive to your state to shop to avoid the taxes in my state.

We need to do lunch one day…

Really in the end I see no connection to the people who donated to the Clinton campaign and S-CHIP anyway. I don’t know the exact number but I want to go out on a limb and say that if everybody taking advantage of S-CHIP donated to the Clinton campaign she’s be in great shape.

More on this later…I’m off to do some tax free shoping.

The fact is, she was caught breaking the law and it is largely ignored. She promised to do background checks and that was not done and now we have people saying they were told what to do with their money or that money that was not theirs was donated in their name, a felony.

As for health care. Here is the bottom line. If you have any disposable income that you can give to a candidate then you do not need government assistance. I am tired of tax money going to people who have enough to do on their own.

I can show you where to get health care coverage for 400-500 a month. That is 4800-6000 a year. If you can afford 2000 for a candidate I can show you how to save the other money you need.

Cigs 1400 a year, cell phones 720 a year, cable 600 a year sell 45,000 car and get 15,000 car. There are many ways.

As for these people, they are already eligible for the S-CHIP. Some in COngress want to expand that to 3-4 times the poverty level. I am sorry but there is no way anyone can convince me that people in this category need the help. If they do, it is mismanagement on their part.

We can argue the ethics of health care but that, as you say, is dead. The unethical part is taking money from someone and using it for someone else. There is no guearantee for health care and I want to know what rule says that the wealthy need to pay for the poor, though in our country that is what happens now and nearly every program is flawed and expensive and not enumerated in the Constitution.

Let us put it another way. S-CHIP should not be free. If a family has 1000-2000 to donate to Clinton then they should have to pay for a part of the program. The reason we have a welfare class is because we have bred people to depend on government. Once they are at the teat they never want to come off.

This is the major explanation for inner city poverty. People gather where the services are and government gives them what they want. Like a drug, people become addicted to the freebies and never want to get further in life.

I cannot understand how anyone can espouse a system that makes people slaves to it. Politicians I understand, they are breeding their future generations of voters, people too stupid to see that the government (wither party) has never solved their problems and only made them worse.

How did our country survive before welfare and before legalized extortion (known as the tax system)? Why are countries that have high welfare rates and taxes filled with social problems?

We live in a country that gives over 200 million dollars to candidates each time they are running for office in the 4 year cycle. Surely we can afford some of our own expenses instead of relying on government.

BTW, FWIW I have no problem with S-CHIP as it currently stands. I am not for the expansion of the program.

Aside from your distaste for all things Clinton, the real issue here is bundling. Bundling is done by every major campaign and candidate in the race and has been for years now. Bush, for example, rode a wave of corporate cash through bundling in 2000 and 2004. How many of those people were legitimate and traceable donors? How many of those people could afford to donate under your standard? How many of those people were pressured into donating because of the nature of their job, etc., ? Nobody knows.

In this case Hillary Clinton is tapping regions previously ignored by candidates and using bundling to pull in funds from minorities and other poor people who typically would not donate to her campaign unless told to do so by their peers or their local leadership. Besides, there’s no crime in people spending money they technically can’t afford out of outright hope that the next president won’t treat minorities and poor people like trash.

Some of the cash is going to be shady of course. That is the nature and flaw of bundling. Campaigns have systems in place to at least appear to be monitoring these and sometimes things happen like in the case of Hsu. What I don’t understand about you constantly referencing Hsu is how Hsu is any more than just an embarrassment to the campaign as opposed to some kind of ethical problem. In my opinion, fault in the Clinton campaign goes no further than their stupid failure to notice one of their major donors was a criminal and to think gee maybe this wad of cash he gave us might be questionable.

My point? The two major parts of your argument here are flawed.

One, there is not one poor person giving the equivalent yearly cost of health care ($1200 or $500) to the Clinton Campaign so you cannot argue that their donations mean they can afford to buy their own health care for their children and that S-CHIP should be abolished.

Two, if you’re calling Clinton into question for the more shady elements of her bundling of poor folk financing, you’re going to have to call a lot more politicians into question as well, especially GWB who you voted for twice if I’m not mistaken.

But it leads us back to the point that your candidate must be doing something illegal because there is no way that these people could afford this.

Even though more than 50% of the poor in this country are buying a home and around 70% have air conditioning and more than half have at least 1 TV and many 2, most 1 car and many 2, cell phones and cable, they still need help with insurance if they make 3 or 4 times poverty level.

Think about it another way. If you made 45,000 a year and actually took home 45,000 a year then you would have money to spend on these things. What people fail to understand is that government is a big household expense. Not for the poor but for those who make money. When the top quintile pays more taxes than the lower three quintiles there is something wrong.

But those are topics for another day. Hillary has serious ethical and legal issues. She committed felonies in the Peter Paul fiasco and is being protected by a judge hubby appointed. It is on video so there is no VRWC, she broke the law. Hsu is another mess. One would think the way Bubba took all that illegal Chinese money and the donation messes he had they would learn. I guess they did learn that they can break the law without worry.

Now she has gotten donations from people who say that they never gave the money. For a woman who said they were going to do a background check after Hsu, she sure is doing a poor job of it. This woman is Satan and she does not deserve to be president.

In other words, she must be taking illegal donations because it is obvious that these people are too poor to give the money reported.

Abolish the S-CHIP program because it’s unconstitutional. If the people want a program like S-CHIP, let their states provide it. That power and authority IS still reserved to the states.