Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[GaryC 7]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a Dem or rep does it.

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

Examples? That has always been the dems favorite tactic, although the reps are not without a few bad apples.

Well for one - all that post-9/11 "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

I don't see that as an emotional appeal but rather a message to the countries that think they could have helped out the terrorists without consequences. I am talking about some project that a rep wants so he finds a victim to rally support around.

Edited October 10, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a Dem or rep does it.

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

Examples? That has always been the dems favorite tactic, although the reps are not without a few bad apples.

Well for one - all that post-9/11 "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

I don't see that as an emotional appeal but rather a message to the countries that think they could have helped out the terrorists without consequences. I am talking about some project that a rep wants so he finds a victim to rally support around.

All well and good - but I do find it slightly suspect that you continually single out the Democratic party for general criticisms that are common to the entire political process, and are by no means party-specific.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

I don't think it is. If this family qualified then I would say that the scope of the system ought to be reconsidered. People are building that kind of wealth on my tax dollar is not cool. That is very relevant. If the Democrats can't see the relevance of that, then I don't think they should run anything around here. And yes, I am aware that there are far richer families that are still and intent on being for as long as they can on Uncle Sam's teat. I don't like them either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

I don't think it is. If this family qualified then I would say that the scope of the system ought to be reconsidered. People are building that kind of wealth on my tax dollar is not cool. That is very relevant. If the Democrats can't see the relevance of that, then I don't think they should run anything around here. And yes, I am aware that there are far richer families that are still and intent on being for as long as they can on Uncle Sam's teat. I don't like them either.

Like I said, we can argue over the qualifications of the CHIP program, but if this good family qualified and used it they shouldn't be crucified for it.

The Republicans are making an example out of this family as a, "See what happens when you have government managed healthcare? Abuse, abuse, abuse!" Therefore, government managed healthcare doesn't work....it promotes dishonesty. It's nothing but rhetorical BS.

It's like the anecdotal, 'Welfare mommas driving Cadillacs."

Edited October 10, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

I don't think it is. If this family qualified then I would say that the scope of the system ought to be reconsidered. People are building that kind of wealth on my tax dollar is not cool. That is very relevant. If the Democrats can't see the relevance of that, then I don't think they should run anything around here. And yes, I am aware that there are far richer families that are still and intent on being for as long as they can on Uncle Sam's teat. I don't like them either.

Like I said, we can argue over the qualifications of the CHIP program, but if this good family qualified and used it they shouldn't be crucified for it.

The Republicans are making an example out of this family as a, "See what happens when you have government managed healthcare? Abuse, abuse, abuse!" Therefore, government managed healthcare doesn't work....it promotes dishonesty. It's nothing but rhetorical BS.

It's like the anecdotal, 'Welfare mommas driving Cadillacs."

Try and see it from the other angle, Steven. The Republicans didn't choose the case. It was a bad case to put out there. Period.

Look, I'm in favor of government managed health care (for reasons mentioned in various other threads) but I don't see that this particular family should qualify for these benefits seeing that they are seemingly way ahead of me in terms of net worth and I have to pay my family's own way. And apparently theirs with my taxes. That just ain't right any way you try to slice it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

I don't think it is. If this family qualified then I would say that the scope of the system ought to be reconsidered. People are building that kind of wealth on my tax dollar is not cool. That is very relevant. If the Democrats can't see the relevance of that, then I don't think they should run anything around here. And yes, I am aware that there are far richer families that are still and intent on being for as long as they can on Uncle Sam's teat. I don't like them either.

Like I said, we can argue over the qualifications of the CHIP program, but if this good family qualified and used it they shouldn't be crucified for it.

The Republicans are making an example out of this family as a, "See what happens when you have government managed healthcare? Abuse, abuse, abuse!" Therefore, government managed healthcare doesn't work....it promotes dishonesty. It's nothing but rhetorical BS.

It's like the anecdotal, 'Welfare mommas driving Cadillacs."

Try and see it from the other angle, Steven. The Republicans didn't choose the case. It was a bad case to put out there. Period.

Look, I'm in favor of government managed health care (for reasons mentioned in various other threads) but I don't see that this particular family should qualify for these benefits seeing that they are seemingly way ahead of me in terms of net worth and I have to pay my family's own way. And apparently theirs with my taxes. That just ain't right any way you try to slice it.

This family should not be crucified in public when they qualified for the program...period. The tactful way to approach this would have been the Republicans criticizing the policies and qualifications rather than making this family out to be governmental leeches.

If you want, we could start going into a long list of individuals or institutions that taken full advantage of government subsidy programs, but you know we're not because the Republicans aren't really interested in that nor are they really all that interested in doing away with all government subsidies. They're interested in trying to show that government managed healthcare leads to corruption, however faulty their logic is. How about we go after corporate farms that take full advantage of farm subsidies that were designed for the small farmer? Nope. You won't see or hear on talk radio, any Right Wing pundit pointing out how Archer Daniels Midland is living high off the hog...instead, they go after 12 year old boys who've benefited from the CHIP program...tsk, tsk.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I think it's fruitless to quantify whether or not the family deserved to use the CHIP program or not. They met the qualifications - whatever they may be. If the qualifying conditions are not rigid enough, then certainly we can talk about that, but smearing this family's credibility was despicable. Look, all they did was have this boy speak on the radio about his story and the Republicans have Swiftboated his whole family as living high on the hog. Pathetic, IMO.

I don't think it is. If this family qualified then I would say that the scope of the system ought to be reconsidered. People are building that kind of wealth on my tax dollar is not cool. That is very relevant. If the Democrats can't see the relevance of that, then I don't think they should run anything around here. And yes, I am aware that there are far richer families that are still and intent on being for as long as they can on Uncle Sam's teat. I don't like them either.

Like I said, we can argue over the qualifications of the CHIP program, but if this good family qualified and used it they shouldn't be crucified for it.

The Republicans are making an example out of this family as a, "See what happens when you have government managed healthcare? Abuse, abuse, abuse!" Therefore, government managed healthcare doesn't work....it promotes dishonesty. It's nothing but rhetorical BS.

It's like the anecdotal, 'Welfare mommas driving Cadillacs."

Try and see it from the other angle, Steven. The Republicans didn't choose the case. It was a bad case to put out there. Period.

Look, I'm in favor of government managed health care (for reasons mentioned in various other threads) but I don't see that this particular family should qualify for these benefits seeing that they are seemingly way ahead of me in terms of net worth and I have to pay my family's own way. And apparently theirs with my taxes. That just ain't right any way you try to slice it.

This family should not be crucified in public when they qualified for the program...period. The tactful way to approach this would have been the Republicans criticizing the policies and qualifications rather than making this family out to be governmental leeches.

If you want, we could start going into a long list of individuals or institutions that taken full advantage of government subsidy programs, but you know we're not because the Republicans aren't really interested in that nor are they really all that interested in doing away with all government subsidies. They're interested in trying to show that government managed healthcare leads to corruption, however faulty their logic is. How about we go after corporate farms that take full advantage of farm subsidies that were designed for the small farmer? Nope. You won't see or hear on talk radio, any Right Wing pundit pointing out how Archer Daniels Midland is living high off the hog...instead, they go after 12 year old boys who've benefited from the CHIP program...tsk, tsk.

As I said, I do realize that there are far less needy people and institution leeching off the government. But the fact remains that this family is having the taxpayer subsidize their desire to escape Corporate America. That's just not sitting well with me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said, I do realize that there are far less needy people and institution leeching off the government. But the fact remains that this family is having the taxpayer subsidize their desire to escape Corporate America. That's just not sitting well with me.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I say leave them alone if they've followed the guidelines and were qualified.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

As I said, I do realize that there are far less needy people and institution leeching off the government. But the fact remains that this family is having the taxpayer subsidize their desire to escape Corporate America. That's just not sitting well with me.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I say leave them alone if they've followed the guidelines and were qualified.

maybe them qualifications need to be reworked

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I said, I do realize that there are far less needy people and institution leeching off the government. But the fact remains that this family is having the taxpayer subsidize their desire to escape Corporate America. That's just not sitting well with me.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I say leave them alone if they've followed the guidelines and were qualified.

maybe them qualifications need to be reworked

That's what I am saying. It seems that I really have to check into what my family might be entitled to. I thought that as long as I can take care of my family though my work I have an obligation to do so. But apparently I am wrong on that end. Apparently there are goodies to be collected whether I really need them or not. Now I start to understand how people can afford the things they afford...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said, I do realize that there are far less needy people and institution leeching off the government. But the fact remains that this family is having the taxpayer subsidize their desire to escape Corporate America. That's just not sitting well with me.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I say leave them alone if they've followed the guidelines and were qualified.

maybe them qualifications need to be reworked

Maybe...What are the qualifications? What's the poverty level for a family of 4?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/g...und-your-house/

You can click to watch a video there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's the poverty level for a family of 4?

You're not seriously suggesting that a family that lives in a $400K+ home is living in poverty, are you?

If that met the definition of poverty, then I'd be fcuking broke.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.

Right wing bloggers have been harassing the Frosts, calling their home numerous times to get information about their private lives. Compassionate conservatism indeed.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/