speech bit

[kandrathe]

The US is almost banckrupt as it is (one of the reason to go to Iraq).

Not really. We are doing ok. The biggest problem is this runaway program called Social Security that no politician wants to do anything about. Now we have a huge amount of "baby boomers" getting to retirement age, and the stupid Congress has already spent the retirement money. That is why many people (including me) want some control over that huge FICA tax that comes out of our paychecks. At least we won't be buying bombs with it. Also, it would be nice if during the boon years if the Congress would pay down some of our national debt.

I think rasing taxes (to the higher and middle incomes for getting healthcare for everybody is the best thing a president can say during a campaign. There are in the US millions of people that are not insured because they cannot pay for it. (Kandrathe I expect you have a link for this one  )  It should also be logical that the richest pay the most (also in percentage), they are the ones that benefit the most from a good economy, if that means that they pay more taxes to arrange health insurance for every citizen so be it.

Sorry, I disagree. Some of us are taxed enough, I think my income taxes+FICA are now at 45% of my income. But, 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and in fact if you factor in the earned income tax credit, and the newer child tax credit, 1/5 of Americans get more money back on their tax return than they paid in. The top 1/5 of income earners in the US pay 82% of all income taxes.

Census Reports Rise in Uninsured Americans Certainly a problem for the insurance companies. The problem in America is that the majority of health insurance is tied to employment, so anyone who is laid off has a short period of time when they will continue to be covered, and then they must foot the bill themselves. Since employers have been footing the majority of the bill, the prices have skyrocketed and are way our of line, so individuals cannot afford insurance out of pocket, and especially when they have no income.

Employment-based health insurance is still the most reliable means of gaining coverage, and about two-thirds of Americans get their insurance through an employer or that of a family member. People who lose their jobs or cannot get insurance through their employers may buy their own coverage independently. But for many, this option is just too expensive. And people in poor health may be excluded because of pre-existing conditions that many health insurance companies won't cover. The government programs that fill some of the gaps, such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, have eligibility requirements and enrollment procedures that may make coverage difficult to obtain and keep.   Among those who are employed, about 4 percent of people who are offered health insurance on the job decline it and remain uninsured -- primarily because of the expense. In fact, more than eight out of 10 uninsured adults or children live in families in which at least one family member is working. Workers participating in an employer-subsidized health plan typically pay between one-quarter and one-third of the total cost of the insurance premium for family coverage. On top of that, they pay deductibles and co-pays, and sometimes the full cost of prescription drugs and other services not covered by their plans. For low-income families, this can easily amount to 10 percent of their annual income -- a cost that many decide they can't afford. There are also about 18 million Americans whose family head works for a company -- often a small one -- that does not offer health insurance.  Why are health care expenses so great? Although advances in clinical medicine and health care technologies have led to dramatic progress in diagnosing and treating many illnesses and injuries, those very advances also add to the cost of care. As a result, the growth in health insurance costs has outpaced the rise in real income since the mid-1970s. Those costs can make it very difficult for many people to afford insurance, even when employers pay part of the premium.   The obstacles that are stopping millions of Americans from getting and keeping health insurance are nothing new. But as health care costs rise once again, unemployment increases, and the economy stagnates, it's more important than ever for the nation to understand just who is uninsured -- and why. Only with this knowledge will we be able to develop some real solutions. Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Iowa and the University of Iowa Health Systems

The federal government could help by implementing tort reform to limit runaway malpractice punitive damages awards. Without getting a handle on what insurance is expected to pay, it is unfair to expect even the richest 1/5 of wage earners to foot the hyper inflated health insurance rates. I would propose a two tiered system, with one being preventive care, and minor ailments and injuries. I would aim to have everyone covered by this basic level of health care. The second tier would be for catastophic ailments, like transplants, cancer, AIDS, and other very, very expensive procedures. Yes, we can spend huge sums of money to attempt to keep everyone alive, but should we?

What the federal government needs to do is focus on protecting the citizens from terrorism. Everything else is gravy.

When the matter of weapons comes into play there is something else. Being against spending 80 bilion more on Iraq does not mean only against Iraq but means that for him health isnurance is more important, or more police on the streer is more important, or taking care of the environment is more importnat. Long story short, you can spend the money in different ways. Not spending it on weapons (or on subsidizing oil for so that Iraqi people can buy it from american companies) means you can spend it on something else.

That 80 million was for salaries, supplies, and better equipment for soldiers in the field. So voting for the war that put the troops into the field, and then voting against supporting those troops while in the field is irresponsible. Kerry was protesting the fact that Bush would not consider raising taxes.

I have often wondered why the TAX-cut word blind people so much, I mean it is not the President puts tax money in his own pocket is it?? (well with Bush I'm not sure actually  )

New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear Income Tax Burden
Don't Repeal Tax Cuts for the "Rich," Cut the Spending Stupid
First of all I must confess that I don't believe in income taxes at all. I would rather that taxes be levied on consumption, with some exemption on staple goods for those below a particular poverty threshold. This would promote conservation, and reward those who work harder or smarter. It blinds me because I believe that I have earned all 100% of my income (and then some), and the government comes and takes 45% of it from me. Yes, they build me roads, give me police, fire protection and many other amenities which I may or may not need. If the tax burden were 100%, I would in effect be an captive bird in a gilded cage. So at what point is the government enslaving me?