Any Republicans? And why?
- Thread starter PGBD
- Start date
Hmm, you cut taxes for the rich and the lost money will have to come from somewhere to pay for Bu$hCo's insane spending on the war machine, you fucking idiot.
Read the following and then kill yourself.
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=130183&highlight=slashing
Education—The Department of Education would be cut 1 percent, its first actual reduction under Bush. Education programs account for 50 of the 150 programs Bush has proposed to eliminate or substantially cut. The largest single cut is the elimination of the $6 billion Perkins loan program. This more than offsets a slight increase in Pell Grants, where the maximum grant will rise by $100 per student, per year.
A total of $2 billion is to be cut from high school education, including vocational education, Upward Bound, Talent Search and other programs to help poor and minority students prepare for college. The Even Start program, to promote literacy among children whose parents are illiterate, is being scrapped, as well as two programs, costing $474 million, to reduce drug and alcohol abuse among students.
Health care accounts for the largest single cut. Proposed changes to Medicaid, the federal health plan for the poor, call for taking $60 billion out of the program over the next decade. [See “Bush plans renewed assault on Medicaid”]
Other cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services include $100 million from a $300 million program to train doctors at children’s hospitals, and 64 percent of the budget for training other health professionals. The budget eliminates a $9 million program for the treatment of people with spinal cord injuries and $9.9 million to derive stem cells from blood extracted from umbilical cords—not from embryos. Meanwhile there are increases in programs that amount to little more than religious indoctrination: $280 million to promote marriage preservation, sexual abstinence, and “responsible fatherhood,” administered through contracts with “faith-based” organizations.
Housing—Bush proposes to consolidate five separate housing and community development programs, currently funded at $5.7 billion, into a single program costing $3.7 billion and administered by the Commerce Department, traditionally more aligned with business interests. Housing for the disabled would be cut nearly in half, by $118 million, as well as housing assistance of those with AIDS and for Native Americans. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which subsidizes heating bills, would be cut 8.4 percent, even amid soaring fuel and energy prices. Another $143 million would be cut from a program to clear severely deteriorated housing stock.
Job training will be cut back significantly, through the consolidation of four training programs administered by the states, and the elimination of the job training for migrant farmworkers and young people newly released from prison. The Labor Department’s overall budget will be cut by 4.4 percent.
Food and agriculture spending will fall sharply. Food stamp benefits would be eliminated for 200,000 to 300,000 people, and a freeze in child-care funding would cut the number of low-income children receiving help by 300,000 in 2009. Bush aims to save $57 million this year and $1.1 billion over 10 years by denying food assistance to poor families—those with incomes well below the poverty line, but slightly above the level that guarantees eligibility for cash welfare benefits. The Community Food and Nutrition program would be eliminated.
Bush also proposed $8.2 billion in cuts to farm subsidies, which will undoubtedly affect small and medium-size farmers more than the large corporate farmers who are in a position to influence the language of the appropriations bill. Farmers will be compelled to purchase larger amounts of private insurance in order to qualify for federal disaster relief, a requirement that will certainly push many smaller farmers out of the market.
The environment—A half-billion dollars will be cut from water-quality and sewage programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as programs for land restoration and preservation. The Superfund, the EPA’s program for cleaning up the most toxic industrial and mining sites, is perpetually underfunded.
There is a 1.1 percent cut in the Department of the Interior, with a 3 percent cut at the National Park Service and a 5 percent cut for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nearly $110 million cut from programs for America’s indigenous population, the most impoverished social group. At the Department of Energy, money for cleaning up nuclear waste sites will be reduced, even as more money is spent on building new nuclear weapons.
Transportation—Bush proposed the elimination of federal subsidies to Amtrak, the national rail passenger system, which would force closure of a vital artery in the northeastern states (none of which voted for Bush). The budget would also cut $250 million for rehabilitating dilapidated railroad lines.
Veterans—One of the most noxious cuts, for an administration whose wars are creating tens of thousands of new disabled veterans, is to VA health programs. The Bush budget would more than double the prescription drug co-payment for some veterans, from $7 to $15, and require an annual enrollment fee of $250 for drug coverage. The charges would affect non-disabled veterans with incomes above the poverty level. The VA will seek to sharply reduce the number of nursing home patients it subsidizes, from 38,000 to 33,000, aiming to shift funding to the influx of new, younger veterans whose bodies or minds have been damaged by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several VA hospitals will also be closed.
Pensions—The Bush budget calls for a drastic increase in the premiums paid by corporations with pension plans, to finance the deficit of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, whose assets have been drained by the bailout of the steel and airline industry pension funds. Premiums will soar from $2.3 billion last year to $4.4 billion in 2006 and $5.9 billion in 2007. The effect of this measure will be to encourage private companies to cancel traditional defined-benefit plans, which are backed by the PBGC, and go over to 401(k) plans, where the financial risks are borne entirely by workers and not the employer.
Read the following and then kill yourself.
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=130183&highlight=slashing
Education—The Department of Education would be cut 1 percent, its first actual reduction under Bush. Education programs account for 50 of the 150 programs Bush has proposed to eliminate or substantially cut. The largest single cut is the elimination of the $6 billion Perkins loan program. This more than offsets a slight increase in Pell Grants, where the maximum grant will rise by $100 per student, per year.
A total of $2 billion is to be cut from high school education, including vocational education, Upward Bound, Talent Search and other programs to help poor and minority students prepare for college. The Even Start program, to promote literacy among children whose parents are illiterate, is being scrapped, as well as two programs, costing $474 million, to reduce drug and alcohol abuse among students.
Health care accounts for the largest single cut. Proposed changes to Medicaid, the federal health plan for the poor, call for taking $60 billion out of the program over the next decade. [See “Bush plans renewed assault on Medicaid”]
Other cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services include $100 million from a $300 million program to train doctors at children’s hospitals, and 64 percent of the budget for training other health professionals. The budget eliminates a $9 million program for the treatment of people with spinal cord injuries and $9.9 million to derive stem cells from blood extracted from umbilical cords—not from embryos. Meanwhile there are increases in programs that amount to little more than religious indoctrination: $280 million to promote marriage preservation, sexual abstinence, and “responsible fatherhood,” administered through contracts with “faith-based” organizations.
Housing—Bush proposes to consolidate five separate housing and community development programs, currently funded at $5.7 billion, into a single program costing $3.7 billion and administered by the Commerce Department, traditionally more aligned with business interests. Housing for the disabled would be cut nearly in half, by $118 million, as well as housing assistance of those with AIDS and for Native Americans. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which subsidizes heating bills, would be cut 8.4 percent, even amid soaring fuel and energy prices. Another $143 million would be cut from a program to clear severely deteriorated housing stock.
Job training will be cut back significantly, through the consolidation of four training programs administered by the states, and the elimination of the job training for migrant farmworkers and young people newly released from prison. The Labor Department’s overall budget will be cut by 4.4 percent.
Food and agriculture spending will fall sharply. Food stamp benefits would be eliminated for 200,000 to 300,000 people, and a freeze in child-care funding would cut the number of low-income children receiving help by 300,000 in 2009. Bush aims to save $57 million this year and $1.1 billion over 10 years by denying food assistance to poor families—those with incomes well below the poverty line, but slightly above the level that guarantees eligibility for cash welfare benefits. The Community Food and Nutrition program would be eliminated.
Bush also proposed $8.2 billion in cuts to farm subsidies, which will undoubtedly affect small and medium-size farmers more than the large corporate farmers who are in a position to influence the language of the appropriations bill. Farmers will be compelled to purchase larger amounts of private insurance in order to qualify for federal disaster relief, a requirement that will certainly push many smaller farmers out of the market.
The environment—A half-billion dollars will be cut from water-quality and sewage programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as programs for land restoration and preservation. The Superfund, the EPA’s program for cleaning up the most toxic industrial and mining sites, is perpetually underfunded.
There is a 1.1 percent cut in the Department of the Interior, with a 3 percent cut at the National Park Service and a 5 percent cut for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nearly $110 million cut from programs for America’s indigenous population, the most impoverished social group. At the Department of Energy, money for cleaning up nuclear waste sites will be reduced, even as more money is spent on building new nuclear weapons.
Transportation—Bush proposed the elimination of federal subsidies to Amtrak, the national rail passenger system, which would force closure of a vital artery in the northeastern states (none of which voted for Bush). The budget would also cut $250 million for rehabilitating dilapidated railroad lines.
Veterans—One of the most noxious cuts, for an administration whose wars are creating tens of thousands of new disabled veterans, is to VA health programs. The Bush budget would more than double the prescription drug co-payment for some veterans, from $7 to $15, and require an annual enrollment fee of $250 for drug coverage. The charges would affect non-disabled veterans with incomes above the poverty level. The VA will seek to sharply reduce the number of nursing home patients it subsidizes, from 38,000 to 33,000, aiming to shift funding to the influx of new, younger veterans whose bodies or minds have been damaged by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several VA hospitals will also be closed.
Pensions—The Bush budget calls for a drastic increase in the premiums paid by corporations with pension plans, to finance the deficit of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, whose assets have been drained by the bailout of the steel and airline industry pension funds. Premiums will soar from $2.3 billion last year to $4.4 billion in 2006 and $5.9 billion in 2007. The effect of this measure will be to encourage private companies to cancel traditional defined-benefit plans, which are backed by the PBGC, and go over to 401(k) plans, where the financial risks are borne entirely by workers and not the employer.
give a poor person some money and they will spend it and it will get taxed once. give a businessmen some money and he will invest it and they money will "trickly down" and get taxed several times thus increasing tax revenues
revenues went up under reagans presidency because of the tax cuts.
bush tax cuts have created millions of new jobs.
revenues went up under reagans presidency because of the tax cuts.
bush tax cuts have created millions of new jobs.
small business owners, families with children, every1 who pays taxes.
did you expect something different??? how can you expect for some1 who doesNOT pay taxes to get a tax break???
LOL, i see your still hung up on that one??? LOL!!! as far as i can recall every recount had bush as the winner, just because the Supremes said "QUIT COUNTING" doesnt mean Gore would have won!!! LOL
what about the second time around????
did you expect something different??? how can you expect for some1 who doesNOT pay taxes to get a tax break???
LOL, i see your still hung up on that one??? LOL!!! as far as i can recall every recount had bush as the winner, just because the Supremes said "QUIT COUNTING" doesnt mean Gore would have won!!! LOL
what about the second time around????
Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. Any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future?
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to –1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it’s on to median income growth.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.
Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn’t until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher – indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.
Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth.
This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to –1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it’s on to median income growth.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.
Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn’t until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher – indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory.
Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.
Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth.
How do you know this man and his family didn't have slaves?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN AND HIS FAMILY HAD SLAVES?
OK WELL MY GREAT GREAT GRANDPA RAN A FARM WHERE HE GREW CROPS, AND MY GRANDPA AS A BOY HELPED HIM WORK ON THE FARM.
IS THAT ENOUGH PROOF
WHAT ELSE ARE THE RICH GOING TO BUY, IF YOU GIVE THEM MORE MONEY ARE THEY GOING TO SAY OH NOW WE CAN BUY THIS? YA THEYLL UPDATE MACHINES INVEST BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT SOO MUCH UNTIL YOU RUN INTO DISECONOMIES OF SCALE
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN AND HIS FAMILY HAD SLAVES?
OK WELL MY GREAT GREAT GRANDPA RAN A FARM WHERE HE GREW CROPS, AND MY GRANDPA AS A BOY HELPED HIM WORK ON THE FARM.
IS THAT ENOUGH PROOF
WHAT ELSE ARE THE RICH GOING TO BUY, IF YOU GIVE THEM MORE MONEY ARE THEY GOING TO SAY OH NOW WE CAN BUY THIS? YA THEYLL UPDATE MACHINES INVEST BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT SOO MUCH UNTIL YOU RUN INTO DISECONOMIES OF SCALE
The 'trickle down effect is b.s. RichConservative tinko philosophy to justify their actions, what ever lets you sleep at night thoug...
Revenues went up, and the economy WAS stimulated under Reagan-omics ONLY for the WEALTHY, the GDP or other measurments don't accurately reflect the overall standard of living. It's a bogus measurment... Reagan also let ketchup be a vegetable for the school lunch program.
And the millions of jobs BushCo has created have been outsourced to foriegn countries. Don't believe me, call your credit card company...
He has created more low-skill/no-skill jobs for companies like Walmart and McDonalds, but the service or manufacturing jobs which actually afford a comfortable level of living have all been outsourced....
oh yeah and if I forgot to say, you're an idiot...
Here is a contemporary example about the qualms we face when we cut taxes as well as sponsor a muti-billion dollar illegal occupation of a foriegn country... and oh yeah, the dollars ain't goin' in anyone's pocket on this board...
To help get you started, here's more information on some of the services most at risk in the Republican budget:6
Medicaid: The Republicans' primary target is the last-resort health care option for millions of children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly and the working poor.7 Have you or anyone you know benefited from these medical services? Might you ever?
Student loans: The Republican budget would slash billions from the largest source of student aid in America.8 Have you or anyone you know used government grants, loans, or work-study to help afford higher education? Will you or your family in the future?
Food stamps: Public outcry helped convince the Senate to abandon their attack, but House Republicans are still pushing for big cuts. Nearly 80% of all food stamp funds go to families with children,9 and over half all Americans will use food stamps at some point in their adult life.10 Have you, or anyone you know, ever needed food stamps to put dinner on the table? Do you think you ever might?
Pension guarantees and unemployment insurance: The Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation protects the retirement security of nearly 45 million American workers.11 National unemployment insurance helps millions transition when they are laid-off.12 Are you or anyone you know counting on your pension for a stable retirement? Have you ever turned to unemployment insurance to make ends meet?
These cuts are driven by right-wing ideology, not fiscal responsibility. As The Washington Post wrote in a strong editorial:
"Republican leaders want to bump up that number to $50 billion—supposedly to deal with the costs of Hurricane Katrina. But don't be bamboozled by the self-satisfied claims of fiscal discipline you'll hear from those pressing these cuts: Their post-Katrina budget plan would add to the deficit, not reduce it."13
In the next few weeks, as part of an unusual process called "budget reconciliation," both houses of Congress must decide if they will go ahead with the Republican plan, and if so, how much to cut from where. During this period of negotiation and multiple votes, the politicians are actively gauging the political consequences of their choices and our voices as can be very powerful.
For their budget plan to succeed, congressional Republicans need the people who depend on these services to stay silent and invisible—
Sources:
1 "House Republicans Put Off Vote on Cuts" The New York Times, 10/19/05
www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/national/20spend.html&cid=0
2 "Senate Plan to Cut Food Stamps Dies" The Washington Post, 10/19/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1037
3 "Senate Republicans see $10 bln in health cuts" Reuters, 10/20/05 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1038
4 "House GOP sets $50b target for cuts to budget," The Boston Globe, 10/20/05 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1029
5 "Katrina's Cost to the Poor," The Washington Post, 10/20/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1030
6 For a thorough review of the impact of the Republicans' proposed cuts, both at the $35 billion level currently adopted by the Senate at the $50 billion level proposed by House Republican see the Democratic Staff of the House Budget Committee report, available here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1031 (pdf)
Also see the new report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, available here:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-21-05bud.htm
7 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicaid eligibility
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/whoiseligible.asp
8 U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1032
9 Food Research and Action Center
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1033
10 "Food stamps' broad reach—Half of U.S. adults have used them, researchers find" The San Francisco Chronicle, 09/05/04
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1034
11 Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
http://www.pbgc.gov/
12 U.S. Department of Labor
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp
13 "Katrina's Cost to the Poor," The Washington Post, 10/20/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1030
To help get you started, here's more information on some of the services most at risk in the Republican budget:6
Medicaid: The Republicans' primary target is the last-resort health care option for millions of children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly and the working poor.7 Have you or anyone you know benefited from these medical services? Might you ever?
Student loans: The Republican budget would slash billions from the largest source of student aid in America.8 Have you or anyone you know used government grants, loans, or work-study to help afford higher education? Will you or your family in the future?
Food stamps: Public outcry helped convince the Senate to abandon their attack, but House Republicans are still pushing for big cuts. Nearly 80% of all food stamp funds go to families with children,9 and over half all Americans will use food stamps at some point in their adult life.10 Have you, or anyone you know, ever needed food stamps to put dinner on the table? Do you think you ever might?
Pension guarantees and unemployment insurance: The Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation protects the retirement security of nearly 45 million American workers.11 National unemployment insurance helps millions transition when they are laid-off.12 Are you or anyone you know counting on your pension for a stable retirement? Have you ever turned to unemployment insurance to make ends meet?
These cuts are driven by right-wing ideology, not fiscal responsibility. As The Washington Post wrote in a strong editorial:
"Republican leaders want to bump up that number to $50 billion—supposedly to deal with the costs of Hurricane Katrina. But don't be bamboozled by the self-satisfied claims of fiscal discipline you'll hear from those pressing these cuts: Their post-Katrina budget plan would add to the deficit, not reduce it."13
In the next few weeks, as part of an unusual process called "budget reconciliation," both houses of Congress must decide if they will go ahead with the Republican plan, and if so, how much to cut from where. During this period of negotiation and multiple votes, the politicians are actively gauging the political consequences of their choices and our voices as can be very powerful.
For their budget plan to succeed, congressional Republicans need the people who depend on these services to stay silent and invisible—
Sources:
1 "House Republicans Put Off Vote on Cuts" The New York Times, 10/19/05
www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/national/20spend.html&cid=0
2 "Senate Plan to Cut Food Stamps Dies" The Washington Post, 10/19/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1037
3 "Senate Republicans see $10 bln in health cuts" Reuters, 10/20/05 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1038
4 "House GOP sets $50b target for cuts to budget," The Boston Globe, 10/20/05 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1029
5 "Katrina's Cost to the Poor," The Washington Post, 10/20/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1030
6 For a thorough review of the impact of the Republicans' proposed cuts, both at the $35 billion level currently adopted by the Senate at the $50 billion level proposed by House Republican see the Democratic Staff of the House Budget Committee report, available here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1031 (pdf)
Also see the new report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, available here:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-21-05bud.htm
7 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicaid eligibility
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/whoiseligible.asp
8 U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1032
9 Food Research and Action Center
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1033
10 "Food stamps' broad reach—Half of U.S. adults have used them, researchers find" The San Francisco Chronicle, 09/05/04
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1034
11 Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
http://www.pbgc.gov/
12 U.S. Department of Labor
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp
13 "Katrina's Cost to the Poor," The Washington Post, 10/20/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1030
MEDICAID: YES HEALTH CARE IS EXPENSIVE, BUT IT IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, I KNOW OF A SITUATION WHERE A LADIES DAD DIED IN CANADA BECAUSE HE HAD TO WAIT FOR SOO LONG TO GET MEDICINE/SURGERY. SHE SAID IF HE LIVED IN THE US HER FATHER WOULD STILL BE ALIVE
STUDENT LOANS: NEVER USED THEM. I AM ABOUT TO START. SOLUTION=NON GOVERNMENTAL SCHOLARSHIPS
FOOD STAMPS: GET RID OF THEM COMPLETELY. IF YOU CANT RAISE A FAMILY, THEN DONT HAVE KIDS
PRIVATIZATION IS FINE
STUDENT LOANS: NEVER USED THEM. I AM ABOUT TO START. SOLUTION=NON GOVERNMENTAL SCHOLARSHIPS
FOOD STAMPS: GET RID OF THEM COMPLETELY. IF YOU CANT RAISE A FAMILY, THEN DONT HAVE KIDS
PRIVATIZATION IS FINE
Shit, you guys are acting like the ambulence and hospital work so perfectly here. SHIT! My family has insurance and on a few occasions where one of us needed immediate medical attention, we had to wait forever. Filling out forms, showing forms of ID or whatever. Quit acting like everything is so perfect here and that's the only way a country should work.
Although Canada’s healthcare system is not perfect, it’s a hell of a lot better than the complete and utter joke we have here in the US.
Again Mcleanhatch, I’d like to point out that over 45 MILLION Amerikans do NOT have healthcare. The costs of health care for most of us is prohibitive. That's why so many millions don't have it and is why many people have serious life threatening conditions that they can not afford treatment to correct.
We need a system like MOST of EUROPE or Canada because it ensures that everyone has access to health care and generally raises the general health of the nation. No longer will people have to choose between paying their rent or having that lump in their breast checked out. No longer would our emergency rooms be filled with people who can't afford to get routine medical problems taken care of at a clinic.
The people in Canada and Europe don't have to worry about an illness driving them into bankruptcy or having to make the choice between medicine and food (“According to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, more than 50% of the 1.6 million bankruptcies filed in 2004 were direct results of high medical bills.” – Rick Lynde aka 2-0-Sixx, SOURCE)
Anyone who prefers privatized health care over socialized healthcare is either making a direct profit from it, or is a complete moron.
Again Mcleanhatch, I’d like to point out that over 45 MILLION Amerikans do NOT have healthcare. The costs of health care for most of us is prohibitive. That's why so many millions don't have it and is why many people have serious life threatening conditions that they can not afford treatment to correct.
We need a system like MOST of EUROPE or Canada because it ensures that everyone has access to health care and generally raises the general health of the nation. No longer will people have to choose between paying their rent or having that lump in their breast checked out. No longer would our emergency rooms be filled with people who can't afford to get routine medical problems taken care of at a clinic.
The people in Canada and Europe don't have to worry about an illness driving them into bankruptcy or having to make the choice between medicine and food (“According to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, more than 50% of the 1.6 million bankruptcies filed in 2004 were direct results of high medical bills.” – Rick Lynde aka 2-0-Sixx, SOURCE)
Anyone who prefers privatized health care over socialized healthcare is either making a direct profit from it, or is a complete moron.