Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The trickle down theory espoused by the right would lead you to belive that there is a pool at the top that this “trickle” comes from. How nice of them to allow the “trickle” to make it’s way down to the commoners.
The theory also assumes that big business will eschew higher profits to hire more workers. Has anyone actually seen this happen? Corporate downsizing seems to fly in the face of this.

The whole concept of “trickle-down” is such obvious BS. All you need to do is look at CEO salaries and how they continue to rise even as the companies beneath them falter. And how many wage-earners are buying into this concept that is choking the life from them?

Cute.

I really like the link to prove that Wall Street likes Kerry. Too bad it’s from February when they were scared to death of a Dean presidency.

Now the health care issue is worth discussing. The Wall Street Journal did a good summary of the two heath care proposals yesterday. I tend to agree with that assessment, and Bush’s plan. We can either move towards a state sponsored/managed health care system that has failed in every country that’s tried it. Or we can move to a personally controlled health care system.

Ohh, and to say that class action law suits seeking outrageous claims isn’t having a draining influence on this country is laughable.

-D

“Ohh, and to say that class action law suits seeking outrageous claims isn’t having a draining influence on this country is laughable.”

Who said that? I must have missed that quote.

“Ohh, and to say that class action law suits seeking outrageous claims isn’t having a draining influence on this country is laughable.”

I’ll say it. Class action lawsuits protect people against corporations. I for one think that there needs to be more policies that favor individuals over corporations.

On a related note: why do you think that Republicans want Tort reform so badly? Here’s two reasons: 1) A cap on damages payable to people harmed by corporations will allow corporations to factor the costs of such suits into their budgets as “a cost of doing business” and won’t bother making sure their products are as safe as they can be (the lawsuits become much less expensive than research) 2) Litigators working on behalf of people against insurance companies, tobacco companies and the like are big donors to Democrats. Taking money from these public protection attorneys also takes money from Republican rivals.

OK everyone in the blue column, I need help on this topic. You all know that I am either in the middle of the road on my vote or maybe just a lunatic in the way I think, but I hope you all can help or are willing to offer info.

First of all. I am not offering this as facts, I have not had time to search for any info. as of yet. (working) But this is going around in an email and it has finally reached my workplace and I do not wish for dis-information to be passed around if it is not true. So I am seeking help. (There is also a very annoying co-worker who supports Bush no matter what involved)

Info received in an email:
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the “Tax Freedom Day”. This is the day that after the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th.
That’s the earliest it has been since 1991.
It’s latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he
claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts.
He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars.
(His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average (A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000.
Does that sound right?
The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Pass this on. Only 61 days until the election.

Thanks to all who can help.

The comment about law suites was taken from AP’s discussion of health care that he linked to.

Law suits are fine. Being rewarded for lost property, lost wages, all of that is fine. It is the limitless ‘pain and suffering’ part that is the real drain on the economy. Does anyone really want to say that it’s ok to sue McDonalds because you burned yourself on the coffee? Like you didn’t know it was hot. Please explain to me why there should be a cap on pain and suffering rewards. It’s not about making a safe product, now it’s become about making the most warning labels possible. And in most of these cases, the victim doesn’t win, the lawyer is the real winner. Look at Edwards millions.

-D

The Democratic line seems to be something like all the good things Bush has done would have happened anyway. “Any president would have acted in Afghanistan” “These are the tax cuts Gore would have given us.” On the other hand, any bad things are the direct result of Bush’s malfeasance.

It is easy to say what you are “gonna do” and easier still to claim you “woulda done it”. When it is all said and done, however, much more is said than done. Bush has done a lot that others may promise.

Remember this about John Kerry. He would be the richest man ever to sit in the White House (don’t bother saying it is his wife’s money. I know he made his money the old fashioned way – he married it, but he gets to use it.) According to the John & Teresa Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was 12.8%. Bush paid about 30% of his much smaller income. You and I pay about 20%. As a candidate Kerry says he will tax the rich. As a billionaire, he does something else. Don’t tell me what he would have, could have, should have or is going to do. Look at what he did.

kctim
Kerry’s money isn’t his, it’s his wife’s.

Ohh, and to say that class action law suits seeking outrageous claims isn’t having a draining influence on this country is laughable.

I think Delzario is talking about the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office’s finding that malpractice lawsuits only amount to one half of one percent of healthcare costs.

We had a cap on lawsuits in California, but it didn’t help. Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia all cap payouts, but they still have the highest insurance premiums in the nation.

Premiums don’t correspond to lawsuit payouts. The problem isn’t tort reform, it’s insurance reform.

In California, once we ended the insurance companies’ exemption from antitrust laws, premiums immediately dropped 20%.

Kerry’s plan is full of similar things that reduce the price of healthcare insurance. For Delzario to say Kerry’s plan is “state sponsored/managed healthcare” is just wrong.

I did my own summary of the two health care proposals here a while back Here’s Bush’s plan, and Kerry’s plan.

Well, let’s not split hairs. Kerry is wealthy and he has accountants who figure out how best to allow him (and Teresa) to pay the least in taxes. Jack has debunked the “Kerry paid $90,000 in taxes” rumor, but it does seem pretty safe to say that if Kerry really does tax the rich the way he says he’s going to, it will fly in the face of what he’s done for himself in the past.
Does that mean he won’t do it? I don’t know. The same people who are saying Kerry changes his mind all the time are now saying he’ll be consistent with how he approaches his own taxes. Hmm. Well, okay.
Personally, I do find it unlikely that anyone will ever find a way to penetrate the haze of loopholes for the rich, especially someone who is wealthy himself. But I’ve decided there are bigger issues for me than a tax plan that probably won’t change much either way.

Does anyone really want to say that it’s ok to sue McDonalds because you burned yourself on the coffee? Like you didn’t know it was hot.

Delzario, I think Edwards covered their plan for that really well in the VP debate,

John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don’t do it; have a three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases.

That way we keep the cases out of the system that don’t belong in the system. They talk about frivolous cases. We believe cases that don’t belong in the system should never be in the system.

Bush’s tort reform plan lets lawyers file all the frivolous lawsuits they want, but caps the damages.

Kerry’s plan keeps the frivolous lawsuits out of the system in the first place.

Honestly I think that’s a good idea in their plan to limit the quantity of law suits. The problem I see is who is on this panel. Who picks these experts? Right now you can’t file a class action law suit unless a judge approves it. That’s why more class action law suits are filed in a small town in Illinois than anywhere else. The judge there will rubber stamps anything.

This is why I prefer a cap to ‘pain and suffering’ that’s infallible. To a panel that is prone to having conflicts of interest.

As for the true cost of law suits. It goes beyond the impact to doctors to impact all industries. And there is conflicting on the true cost to health care

Right now you can’t file a class action law suit unless a judge approves it. That’s why more class action law suits are filed in a small town in Illinois than anywhere else.

But the total number of class action lawsuits fell, didn’t it?

Either way, according to the CBO, “even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums.” - About 0.5%.

Insurance premium prices do not correspond to lawsuit payouts.

You’re going to get a much bigger bang for your buck by encouraging healthcare providers to use computers and other technology to handle paperwork. Kerry’s accountants estimate it will cut administrative costs in half and will also reduce malpractice suits that arise from illegible handwriting.

Kerry says, “While banks have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction using computers and technology, a single transaction in health care costs as much as twelve to twenty-five dollars — and not a penny goes to care.”

That needs to change.

Alejo

I don’t think the 90,000 figure is wrong, it is only that is John’s part. John and Teresa pay more because they make a lot more. The Kerrys are a billionaire couple, no matter what we say about it.

As for John Kerry changing his mind – I don’t think he does. That does not mean he doesn’t change his positions. My guess (and that is all anyone has) is that he is consistently liberal in his beliefs, but that he adjusts his positions to suit the political winds (except in veterans affairs, where he has shown true courage). That might mean that his detractors have less to fear and his supporters have less to expect from him. The prevailing political wind for the next couple of years will probably be from the right, so we can expect Kerry to tack right. By the way, this is a exactly what Clinton did with NAFTA and welfare reform.

You can expect he will raise them on most taxpayers. Why? Taxing the rich (like Kerry himself) would require a major overhaul of the tax system to close loopholes etc. It would take a lot of political capital that Kerry will not have and would no want to spend. The only way to fill the gap is to redefine rich to include for example households making more than the median income and tax accordingly. Kerry will still be paying his 12.8% in taxes. Some poor guy making $60,000 (but without Kerry’s tax accountants) will be pushed up into the 30+% bracket.

Here’s an interesting article. Comments?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams5.html

Bnorth

And hey did someone mention healthcare?

Another interesting read! Can we say political hypocrisy? Comment if you will/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/medicare.asp

Bnorth

As far as Kerry’s taxes, they wouldn’t change. He’s not proposing taxing the already rich, he just wants to tax the people that are trying to make the money now. People like Kerry and Edwards that have made, married, or inherited their money won’t be affected. People that are running or starting small businesses are the ones that will bear most of the burden of the tax increases. It’s always fun to pick on the ‘rich’ but are you picking on people like the Kennedy’s that just live off their fortune, or are you picking on people like my family that puts every penny that doesn’t go to Washington back into the company.

The left has fallen back into the classic class warfare role that stopped working for them years ago.

Back to health care. If malpractice insurance is only effected .5% by lawsuits, where is there rest of the cost coming from? If the insurance companies aren’t paying it out in settlements, why would they raise rates so high they loose customers?

-D

kctim-

Tax Freedom Day is a good barometer on taxes as it includes in its computations all forms of taxation. It is done by the Tax Foundatation and they have it calculated back to 1963. They also track each State so you can see how you compare to other parts of the country.

I’m going to do my own calculation this year of my personal situation as I feel my family is very representative of middle class earners. Thanks to Quicken I think I can get pretty close on all of those hidden taxes like on gasoline, utilities, communication, and sales taxes. Then I’m going to evaluate if I could support a VAT.

The number on Kerry’s taxes does not include all of the hidden taxes either. I’m sure that’s a pretty big bill with all of their properties, vehicles, and the G5. But if he felt the government needed more of his money I do question why he obviously took so many deductions. It’s kind of like Hillary itemizing her used underwear she donated to charity as part of their move to the Whitehouse.

Thanks alot George. I’m beginning to think everything in that email is true, nobody has come up with anything to counter it. I can already hear that guy gloating. UGH!

Health care
Ask yourself why healthcare cost so much and what are the alternatives. High priced lawyers, insurance companies and drug firms all play a role, but the biggest actors are ordinary people who demand extraordinary heath care. Changing who pays for it doesn’t change this dynamic except to make it worse when the government pays.

Consider the heart-rending case of a little girl with a terminal disease. She should be given whatever care she needs to recover or at least make her last days as good as possible. The problem is that this care might run into the millions of dollars and there are millions of little girls and little boys in the U.S. Modern medicine has made things possible that we just can’t afford to pay for. My elderly mother in law was kept alive many months despite a terminal cancer. Buying her those extra months costs thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. It cost us little because of Medicare. But it cost the taxpayers a lot and there are millions of elderly parents and grandparents. Until we address the problem of what we will pay for, we can’t address the problem of who will pay for it. There are some things we can’t have.

Re cheap drugs from Canada, this situation won’t last. Drugs are cheap in Canada because the U.S. market essentially subsides R&D for other markets. If the market for drugs becomes truly global, prices will converge that is they will get a little cheaper in the U.S. and a lot more expense in Canada and other places. I think this is a fitting and proper development, but it is not a long-term solution to the drug expense problem.

Jack-

On the cheap drugs from Canada it’s like allowing everyone at the Shoney’s bar to pay at the kid’s plate price; the kid’s plate price will have to rise to keep revenue the same. And drug companies are very interested in revenue.

kctim-

Here’s a good article on taxation by Brian Wesbury.

In finance they teach you about matching the “sources and uses” of funds. That’s what good tax policy should do as well. And we should never spend tax dollars on goods and services that can be reasonably provided for by the marketplace. In that light, I do not support any socialized healthcare programs as too many of us are willing to pay for it ourselves. I also think global education spending is nonproductive.

Great points Jack. Many of our neighbors take their kids to the hospital for every little cold, cut or ache, things that do not require hospital care but that are still billed to the tax payers. We pay for our health care out of our own budget, therefore, we do not visit the hospital for just minor things. My kids have far fewer colds and are all around generally healthier than the others. Their bodies are not riddled with unecessary drugs and hopefully, they will grow up healthier and because of this, they will not need to visit the doctor as much. This saves money also.
Cutting back on this type of abuse and making parents responsible for their own kids health, would be a good start.

kctim —

There’s no denying people abuse the health-care system and that we all pay the price for that. But can you afford to shoulder the entire burden of heatlh care for your family? I can’t, and I’m single! I like the idea of personal responsiblity, too, but there are some things I just can’t afford on my own anymore.

I can’t help but notice:

Everyone seems to agree that Kerry is a rich man who hires accountants to handle things like taxes. Everyone also seems to agree that accountants are skilled in using loop holes to get their rich clients to pay fewer taxes.

No one seems to make the association that this means Kerry is not doing his own taxes, he is paying someone else to do them for him while he takes care of other things (like being a senator and running for president, for example). And that it is the job of that person to get him every tax break he is legally entitled to.

Unless Kerry wants to do his own taxes, as if he had time to, he probably has very little control over which tax breaks his accountant takes for him.

In the end, the best way to measure his position on this subject is to see what real steps he takes towards changing tax law to close the loopholes that exist for the rich. Using his own tax returns as a gauge only measures the position his accountant takes towards this subject, not Kerry himself.

Alejo
I can afford the burden for “basic” health care. We have budgeted for that. I cannot afford to abuse health care, such as I described my neighbors doing. Abusing it that way would be wasting my money and, if I used it, the tax payers money.
While I very much am in support of personal responsiblity, I am not a nut about it (although some would argue otherwise, lol) I do realize sometimes, people will need aid with providing healthcare. But everything about it would be alot cheaper if we weren’t giving unecessary drugs to our kids or taking them to the doctor everytime they get a cold or cut.

kctim —

I totally agree. Whenever I do have to go to my doctor’s, I see people there who are massively overweight, wheezing, and reeking of cigarettes. It really irks me to know I’m paying to help the doctor try to fix the damage they’re willfully doing to themselves. A little bit of personal accountability would make people a lot less likely to suck off the healthcare teat.

As a rough parallel, there are some states where your auto insurance pays for whatever happens to you (no-fault) and other states where your insurance pays for what you do to someone else (tort). So, if I’m in an accident in a no-fault state my insurance pays for my injuries no matter who caused the accident. In a tort state, all injuries will be paid for by the insurance of the person who was at-fault.

To (finally) get to the point, research has found that the incidence of whiplash was much, much lower in no-fault states. Coincidence? I don’t think so….

Alego,

>

Your example really has less to do with self accountability as it does litigation. The reason for the lower incidences of lower whiplash is that the lawyers are excluded in the no fault scenario. Doesn’t have anything to do with how good of a driver one is. The legal cost is significantly lower because there are no trials to determine fault.

PS. Two great articles that I posted above that I have yet to see any response to. Sure would like some response.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams5.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/medicare.asp

Brad

Brad —

I wasn’t talking about driver skill. You’re right that some of it has to do with the fact that injury lawyers are out of the loop in no-fault states, but it’s also because people have to report their injuries to THEIR OWN insurance companies and they’re less likely to report fraudulent claims to their own companies for fear their rates will go up.

Alejo-

Good point, but that seems to Bush’s proposal over Kerry’s. Bush’s plan is to encourage people to pay for their own insurance rather than through their company by making those payments tax free and encouraging health savings accounts. While Kerry is trying to encourage more people to join the larger plans paid for by others.

Seems to me the guys paying for their own medical insurance and coverage would be the no-fault guy. And the Kerry plan of government assisted health insurance would be the tort plan.

-D

Delzario —

It would seem that way, wouldn’t it? Actually I think somewhere in the middle of the two would be most effective. If people were more responsible about how they use healthcare it would be more affordable, but to place much of the burden on the taxpayer now is going to make healthcare unaffordable for a lot of people. So in theory, if not in immediate practice, I do believe in personal responsiblity.

However, from my perspective neither healthcare nor taxes are the priority in this election, so it’s something of an academic argument to me.

[comment deleted for critiquing the messenger instaed of the message— Watchblog Manager]

LOL, I do get that alot rapidray.
It seems that having pride, respect and taking responsiblity for myself instead of depending on the govt. to give me everything and take care of me is definetly being in the minority. Seriously, a person would have to be a lunatic and a nut to think he can think for himself or even take care of himself. Guess I’ll go check in now.

I am very independent and pay my own way… (kctim is not in a minority). But I know people who cannot. Most times its not their fault. Its easy to stereotype people but it usually is an indication of a person’s inability to grasp reality. kctim should count his blessings that he hasn’t been presented with a catastrophic loss but it could happen. (In my 50 years I have been at a place like kctim of haughty self-righteousness and have now lived to regret it…I hope he doesn’t have to.) The facts are that liberals do pay their own way and actually suck less of the federal tit than corporate America. What most of us liberals are saying, if its our money spend it on us, not the top 1%. But then again the top 2(0)% pay 80% of the money. Funny how that top 2% have gotten extraordinarily richer while middle America has gotten poorer. I guess it has something to do with those who have the money have the power. For all my tax “cuts”, I am spending much more for everything; GASOLINE, lumber, insurance, education, etc., while my income has fallen. If the same were true under a Dem, the republicans would be HOWLING!

Gene,
The top 2% have gotten richer because it takes money to make money in this country. They don’t have to worry about living from paycheck to paycheck.
On the subject of health care.
I suppose that this has been beaten to death, but before we had the present healthcare system, HMO’s, PPO’s, etc. you found a doctor, and you developed a relationship with him , he knew your family, he treated them as well. I see the problem as not just the insurance companies but the fact that more doctors are specializing, therefore the experience is becoming less personal as we are herded through the health care process.

Bush’s plan is to encourage people to pay for their own insurance rather than through their company by making those payments tax free and encouraging health savings accounts. While Kerry is trying to encourage more people to join the larger plans paid for by others.

That’s not quite correct. Kerry’s plan is to make healthcare affordable so eventually everyone can afford to pay for their own private plan and take the burden off of businesses. Bush’s plan moves in the same direction, but it’s not as ambitious as Kerry’s. It won’t get us there.

brad, the tax article is a crock. I don’t remember any of the ultra-wealthy complaining about paying taxes during the Golden Age of Clinton. BTW, have you read that guy’s book, “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession”?

As for the 17% Medicare premium hike, are you complaining about Bush not doing anything to keep the cost of healthcare down, or the fact that Kerry hit him with it?

Whenever I do have to go to my doctor’s, I see people there who are massively overweight, wheezing, and reeking of cigarettes. It really irks me to know I’m paying to help the doctor try to fix the damage they’re willfully doing to themselves.

That’s exactly why dismantling Social Security is a bad idea, Alejo. It’s why the program started in the first place. Many people just won’t save. You can talk to them about personal responsibility all you want, but it won’t make any difference. Then what do you do with them?

The other reason we have Social Security is because the stock market crashed and wiped out a whole lot of responsible people’s life savings.

The problem with social security is not intent AP, its execution. SS is a ponzi scheme and if not changed will collapse just as ponzi schemes do when fewer new investors are around to pay the returns to the older investors. It’s a flawed design.

There are two basic problems with our healthcare system today. One is that it is sold on a cost recovery basis by providers rather than on a competitive basis. Look at the costs of non-insurance covered procedures and you will see a more market based approach and you find falling prices. Early Lasik or breats implants are prime expamples. The second is that, in order to get the tax benefits in place you must purchase your insurance from your employer. This restricts choice and further ingraines problem no. 1. My best healthcare strategy came when I was self employed a couple of years ago.

George, of course it’s a ponzi scheme, but it’s not going to collapse. It’s not like people are going to start opting out, or the police are going to shut it down.

Here’s Kerry from the debate:

In fact, we put together a $5.6 trillion surplus in the ’90s that was for the purpose of saving Social Security. If you take the tax cut that the president of the United States has given — President Bush gave to Americans in the top 1 percent of America — just that tax cut that went to the top 1 percent of America would have saved Social Security until the year 2075.

The president decided to give it to the wealthiest Americans in a tax cut. Now, Alan Greenspan, who I think has done a terrific job in monetary policy, supports the president’s tax cut. I don’t. I support it for the middle class, not that part of it that goes to people earning more than $200,000 a year.

And when I roll it back and we invest in the things that I have talked about to move our economy, we’re going to grow sufficiently, it would begin to cut the deficit in half, and we get back to where we were at the end of the 1990s when we balanced the budget and paid down the debt of this country.

Now, we can do that.

Now, if later on after a period of time we find that Social Security is in trouble, we’ll pull together the top experts of the country. We’ll do exactly what we did it he 1990s. And we’ll make whatever adjustment is necessary.

Social Security is running a surplus right now. If we can keep the Republicans from giving that surplus to the ultra-rich, we’re in good shape.

Look at the costs of non-insurance covered procedures and you will see a more market based approach and you find falling prices.

Really? You’re taking the position that in a free market, the cost of spending a lot of time on a kidney dialysis machine will be in a range everyone can afford?

Will there be econo health plans for those who can’t afford the deluxe package?

Do you think they’ll have an annual super sale on open heart surgery? WE”VE SLASHED PRICES PRICES SO LOW YOU’LL THINK WE’RE CRAZY!!!

Please.

Gene
I have no problem with giving temp. aid to people who “cannot” get by. My problem is with the ones who “choose not.” I feel they are in the majority, they deserve nothing.
If I live to regret anything, it is my fault, not yours, the govt’s or anyone elses.
A catastrophic loss can happen at anytime and I believe everyone is entitled to get aid to help them get through it.

“What most of us liberals are saying, if its our money spend it on us”
- I don’t think this way, sorry. My thinking goes along with “if its our money, let us spend it how we deem necessary.”
I also don’t subcumb to the fabricated “tax cuts for the wealthy” line. If you pay more in, you get more back. Now, if we all paid the same, as I believe we should, then I would have a problem with one group getting more than the other.
You have a right to blame corporate America, only I choose to blame them “and” our govt’s liberal spending, vote buying, special interest supporting ways in addition. And I don’t mean just the Dems either.
I tend to be more of a Democrat than Republican, but when I suffered less pay, higher medical, dental and embarassment during clinton, I blamed the Dems for it. I am not blinded by party loyalty.
I am sorry if you see me as haughty and self-righteousness for my belief in less govt. dependacy. I was raised to have pride and respect for myself. To be the first to offer help when truely needed and to ask for help only after all other means have been exhausted.
I am sure you did not mean any inside jabs or anything and that you are a honorable person. But your post stung somewhat, I hope I was able to get my reply across without any anger. If I failed in this, I am sorry, you do not deserve it. It was not intended.

AP
“The other reason we have Social Security is because the stock market crashed and wiped out a whole lot of responsible people’s life savings.”
- That is an excellent point. Many people against SS (myself included) tend to forget about this aspect of SS. But there has to be a way for the govt. to not take so much, waste so much and give us some choice in how it will benefit the populace. It is not working to our benefit as it is now.

No sting here and I can further appreciate your position. I don’t agree that the majority of people want to live off the govt. Most people want a decent chance to be rewarded for their efforts. Its a bit discouraging to work hard all your life just to see things like ENRON happening and an admin that essentially ignores it. Distribution of wealth is NOT based on hard work but more on who you know with the money. Just because someone works hard all their life and tries to make good decisions, there are no guarantees. We as a society have banded together to collectively try to help those among us who are disadvantaged for whatever reason. Has this been abuse and gotten out of hand?, yes. Do we “throw the baby out with the bathwater? NO! We continue to refine the process to get a better return on our investment in people as a nation. This judgemental looking down our noses and judging the majority as lazy and leeching is not accurate or productive. Like I said, I’ve been there and I tend to think you are there as well.

The tax cuts for the wealthy when viewed form a percentage of income and other factors have received a greater proportion of tax cut. The arguement for the whole tax cut thing was to stimulate the economy. Any self respecting economist will tell you, you need demand to creat jobs, not supply. Tax cuts to the rich were supposed to create supply and thus create jobs. But who’s going to buy? DEMAND IS FIRST!. Anyway, I hope not to offend personally, but am offended by this mindset of people who assume that the majority of folks in this country are a bunch of lazy bums — that’s what the rep’s want us to believe because it makes their job easier. Got to go work…check back in tonite about 12:30 c.

AP-

Hey I think a sale on heart transplants would be a much better alternative to the current cost reimbursement method. That’s what happened with Lasik when they started the two eyes for the price of one deals. Happy hour dialysis, moonlight madness outpatient surgeries,etc. etc.

It’s not about bringing healthcare to a range that ordinary people can afford, it is about interjecting market forces into a currently innsulated marketplace. This will reduce medical costs. Insuring more people without addressing the rising costs of healtcare makes no sense.

Just take my personal healthcare “crisis.” My company spends right at $1,000/mo on my insurance premium. I’m lucky in they pay 100% of the tab. Most do not. When I was independent last year I had a policy that cost me $140/mo. It had a $2,000 deductable but a $3,000 max out of pocket. If I could get the $1,000/mo tax free from my employer (it is part of my compensation), I’d buy the cheaper policy, save $300/mo of it against my deductable, and pocket over $500/mo in free money. And with no adverse effect to the Government.

Please take some time to read the Cato site on this stuff AP. I know you are a big Kerry fan and he has a plan and all, but there are some little ideas out there that could save us all a lot of money. And its bad because I have a vested interest in your healtcare!

Social Security

SS is running a surplus right now because there are more workers than retirees. That will change with the retirement of pesky people like me called baby boomers. Ponzi schemes have gone on forever and in Europe they are still legal. But to survive they must attract new investors. Unless we open up to far greater numbers of legal immigrants there won’t be enough.

It’s not about bringing healthcare to a range that ordinary people can afford, it is about interjecting market forces into a currently innsulated marketplace.

No, George. It is about bringing healthcare to a range that ordinary people can afford. Otherwise, what’s the point?

It’s also about the poor getting the same quality of healthcare as the rich.

As for your personal healthcare crisis, that’s what Kerry is doing. He’s giving you the choice.

Kerry’s plan gives you personally a healthcare tax credit that you can spend on whichever plan you want.

Kerry’s plan uses government incentives and leverage to lower healthcare costs through a variety of means, including modernizing health care provider administration like Bush talked about in the debate (good ideas are non-partisan, right?).

Kerry’s plan also gives you the option to join the healthcare plan that over 9 million government employees use, if you want.

Kerry’s plan is all about reducing the cost of healthcare and giving you more options in how you spend your healthcare budget.

As for Social Security, you don’t need to attract new investors. We’re coming up on what economists call the pig in the python. A fairly short period when there will be more retirees than workers - but that’s not a permamnent condition.

SS does not need to attract new investors. It’s based on an equilibrium between workers and retirees. Sometimes it naturally runs a surplus, sometimes it needs some financial help. But over the long run, it all evens out.

We raised SS taxes slightly in the nineties to see us through the coming blip, but Bush is raiding the Social Security surplus to hand out tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy. This is the “lock box” that Gore was talking about. As long as no one raids the lock box everything will work out. Unfortunately, Bush is raiding the lock box to cover his tax cuts for the rich.

And I’m surprised no one commented on this part of the article:

Another important thing to remember is that these middle-class tax cuts - widely acknowledged as having the most impact on stimulating the economy - make up less than 25% of President Bush’s total tax-cuts-for-the-rich package. In other words, three quarters of the tax-cuts-for-the-rich program could be tossed, and middle- and lower-class Americans would not notice the difference and the economy would be the same.

Good luck on your Kerry campaign AP.

And on your middle class tax cuts point, if you read the article by Brian Wesbury that I linked above he exposes the 5 myths of economic policy. Myth 2 addresses tax cuts.

Thanks, George.

I read that article from your buddy at The Library of Economics and Liberty. His argument for supply-side economics is pretty weak. That’s a common problem for people like Wesbury who try to argue against “the conventional analysis of fiscal policy.”

I think he’s wrong.