Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
How is questioning whether the father is underreporting his income the same as attacking the kid?


 Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

is there any proof or reasonable cause for such questioning? or did that happen when the little kid told the story about the program Bush opposes helping him and his sister?


Wait a minute. The kid was put on the air, with information given to him by his parents and the Democrats for the specific purpose of being represented as a representative receipient of the program. When the whole debate is NOT over "should the program exist at all," but "at what income level should it apply".

Given the above, that is going to make people wonder "is this kid really a typical 'poor' kid who should be in the program."

As a result, a blogger who lives near them pointed out that the father owned his own business, the kids attend public school, they own nearly HALF A MILLION in real estate, etc.

That led others to begin questioning the father's veracity, not the kid's.

 Quote:
it is just attacking the kid indirectly.


No. It's not. But "right wing attacks little kid" is a better talking point for your side than "right wing attacks possible deadbeat dad" or "right wing attacks Democrats for exploiting a kid." So the facts, or even legitimate questions, get ignored in terms of hyperbole.


That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?

If this bill is successfully vetoed by Bush, the bill will go back to congress, to reach agreement on the lower income cap. Which will prevent families with very healthy finances from just cancelling the health insurance they already have, and can well afford, to take government freebies.