1) The President sought to establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. This civilian group would function much like the nation’s military reserve.

Very handy, even more bodies to throw into the firestorm, avoids the need for a draft on his watch.

2) The President detailed a new health care proposal designed to make health insurance more accessible to lower-income families. In Bush's plan, employer-provided health insurance would become taxable income if the benefits were more than $15,000 per year for a family or more than $7,500 per year for an individual. The tax revenues would then be used to subsidize health care for poor people.

Result? Employees opt out of company schemes to "save tax" and the companies save money on premiums, benefits for "poor people"- very little.
This is in effect a stealth tax, since he can't reverse his tax cuts he has to finance schemes elsewhere.

3) The President proposed reducing gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

2% per year reduction? Hardly worthwhile, increasing sales tax on gasoline by 10% would work the trick overnight and putting in place an "energy tax" on low mpg gas guzzlers would encourage sales of smaller, more efficient vehicles

4) Bush encouraged Congress to keep permanently sound what he called "commitments of conscience" -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security."

Fix and save what he screwed up, nice..

im excited about the health care plan! THATS THE BEST IDEA IVE HEARD EVER.

nationalizing health care would demote our health care system back to a second world status

this is a viable and intelligent alternative. (tax cuts)

never mind.

i actually never considered joinin the army but would consider joining the civillian reserve corp...

but id never take the fight outside of my state (short of an invasion)

and about number 3... your an idiot.

that would be a temporary fix to a long term problem.

granted he didnt lay out any real concrete plans. but raising the tax just raises the prices and decreases demand (which lowers the prices again in return)

everyone still buys gas to goto work regardless of price. its a fairly inelastic product.

...

2) The President detailed a new health care proposal designed to make health insurance more accessible to lower-income families. In Bush's plan, employer-provided health insurance would become taxable income if the benefits were more than $15,000 per year for a family or more than $7,500 per year for an individual. The tax revenues would then be used to subsidize health care for poor people.
....

I'm not sure that I understand this; if the health care costs of my family are more than $15,000 a year, (heaven forbid that there should be a catastrophic illness or a chronic condition), above and beyond that would be taxed as income? And that helps me, how? My Dad does chemo at the cost of about $6,000 a cycle, and generally more than one cycle a year; add the cost of his daily meds and it's way over $15,000 a year, and now I have to consider any benefit of his insurance above and beyond as taxable income?

I'm hoping that I am completely misunderstanding this.

I'm not sure that I understand this; if the health care costs of my family are more than $15,000 a year, (heaven forbid that there should be a catastrophic illness or a chronic condition), above and beyond that would be taxed as income? And that helps me, how? My Dad does chemo at the cost of about $6,000 a cycle, and generally more than one cycle a year; add the cost of his daily meds and it's way over $15,000 a year, and now I have to consider any benefit of his insurance above and beyond as taxable income?

I'm hoping that I am completely misunderstanding this.

Yes, it's just a new tax.

I'm not sure that I understand this; if the health care costs of my family are more than $15,000 a year, (heaven forbid that there should be a catastrophic illness or a chronic condition), above and beyond that would be taxed as income? And that helps me, how? My Dad does chemo at the cost of about $6,000 a cycle, and generally more than one cycle a year; add the cost of his daily meds and it's way over $15,000 a year, and now I have to consider any benefit of his insurance above and beyond as taxable income?

I'm hoping that I am completely misunderstanding this.

You are. Health care premiums that come oput of the employees pocket are pre tax (they aren't taxed at all, and comes off the top of the employees W-2 total), as are what comes out of the employers pocket.

If the employer is paying over 15000 a year to the employee, as a share or all of the employees' healh care costs, it would be considered taxable income. It's like a benefit, because the average employer isn't paying that much per employee.

It's a stupid idea and won't work. Employers can just not offer health insurance, or employees can opt out if they don't want another 15,000 in taxable income, yet are willing to risk being uninsured. Thjis idea would have to be compulsory in order to work, and I doubt it will be passed by congress.

Most people have no idea how much their insurance costs and how much the employer pays. Last year, my personal share was over 14,000, but it wasn't taxed. that has come down becausze I have less people on my plan, but I'll still be shelling out at least 6000 a year, not to mention that my take home pay isn't much more, because the income I have saved in premiums is now taxed.

That drop has only saved me about 96.00 per month because I lost the tax benefit of paying the higher premiums.

This plan would also apply differently in different states, because states have their own individual laws regarding health insurance. sates such as mine (MD), have already passed their own "health care reform", and it costs more for insurers to do business here than it used tom so the premiums are higher.

The consumer always pays for these schemes. No company or employer is about to lose money in order to benefit society. That's not how capitalism works, and this idea won't work. if something like it is passed, it will be a watered down version that will just make it more expensive to do business, and small businesses will be hit the hardest, as usual.

The best thing Congress could possibly do is take a two year recess and stop coming up with new laws year after year. They've already done enough damage, and if they get their hands on our health care system, we can be guaranteed to pay more for it.

I think Betrade has come up with the best Idea yet :)

The best thing Congress could possibly do is take a two year recess and stop coming up with new laws year after year. They've already done enough damage, and if they get their hands on our health care system, we can be guaranteed to pay more for it.

I think that no matter what Bush or any of the Democrats say, taxes will be increased in the near future. The deficits we're running for these wars practically require it to happen.

1) The President sought to establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. This civilian group would function much like the nation’s military reserve.

Eh? I just listened to the speech about 1/2 hour ago, and I don't recall him mentioning anything of the sort? :confused: I also just pulled up a transcript of the speech, and did a text search for both "reserve" and "civilian" and couldn't find either one.

2) The President detailed a new health care proposal designed to make health insurance more accessible to lower-income families. In Bush's plan, employer-provided health insurance would become taxable income if the benefits were more than $15,000 per year for a family or more than $7,500 per year for an individual. The tax revenues would then be used to subsidize health care for poor people.

Result? Employees opt out of company schemes to "save tax" and the companies save money on premiums, benefits for "poor people"- very little.
This is in effect a stealth tax, since he can't reverse his tax cuts he has to finance schemes elsewhere.

Actually he specifically stated the plan was to rearrange funds that were already in place in regards to helping the poor. The helping the poor part and the tax reform part weren't interconnected.

3) The President proposed reducing gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

2% per year reduction? Hardly worthwhile, increasing sales tax on gasoline by 10% would work the trick overnight and putting in place an "energy tax" on low mpg gas guzzlers would encourage sales of smaller, more efficient vehicles

I agree with a previous response - you can pretty much make gasoline as expensive as you like, and people will bitch, but they'll still buy it. They don't see it as optional, so the only way to reduce usage is to give them other options.

I got a beef too. Why does everyone clap after every single statement that the president makes? It just makes the address longer. And then they clap prematurely. For instance, last night the president said that he would lower the deficit in 5 yrs w/o raising taxes or something like that. The folks started clapping before he said how he was going to do it. :confused:

I got a beef too. Why does everyone clap after every single statement that the president makes? It just makes the address longer. And then they clap prematurely. For instance, last night the president said that he would lower the deficit in 5 yrs w/o raising taxes or something like that. The folks started clapping before he said how he was going to do it. :confused:

It's simply considered polite I believe - usually even those folks there who don't agree with him will applaud.

Great, so the working middle class gets a tax levied on them if they're sick too much just so the hamburger flippers can save a buck? F you bush, you stinkin' liberal.

Great, so the working middle class gets a tax levied on them if they're sick too much just so the hamburger flippers can save a buck? F you bush, you stinkin' liberal.

OMG and then he had the audacity to speak about cutting earmarks out of bills (and the people clapped). The guy is a friggin joke.

1) The President sought to establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. This civilian group would function much like the nation’s military reserve.

Very handy, even more bodies to throw into the firestorm, avoids the need for a draft on his watch.



LOL, this is you buddy Wesley Clark's idea, not dubya's. George just stole it from him, which once again proves that he's more of a democrat than a conservative. The reserve corp would not be an armed force.

OMG and then he had the audacity to speak about cutting earmarks out of bills (and the people clapped). The guy is a friggin joke.

Actually he said he was going to have the earmarks re-reviewed and actually voted on, based on the bullshit tactics of sneaking them through without actually being looked at first.

Actually he said he was going to have the earmarks re-reviewed and actually voted on, based on the bullshit tactics of sneaking them through without actually being looked at first.

And I think that's a good idea, but why now all of a sudden? He's had 6 (or 5?) SOTU's to address this. And exactly how many bills has he vetoed because of those sneaky little earmarks that he now thinks are so uncool. Boy, he's like the personification of being a day late and a dollar short.

Result? Employees opt out of company schemes to "save tax" and the companies save money on premiums, benefits for "poor people"- very little. This is in effect a stealth tax, since he can't reverse his tax cuts he has to finance schemes elsewhere.
I'm guessing you'll still be way better off taking the employer's health plan. No one is going to opt out to save a few dollars in taxes because they'll be screwing themselves in the end.

2% per year reduction? Hardly worthwhile, increasing sales tax on gasoline by 10% would work the trick overnight and putting in place an "energy tax" on low mpg gas guzzlers would encourage sales of smaller, more efficient vehicles
I have several comments. First, I'm tired of presidents making plans and targets for future presidents to live by. 10 years from now, GWB won't be president and the president we have then won't be obligated to follow through on Bush's promises. The same thing is true for his idea to balance the budget in 5 years.

Secondly, I think any reduction is a massive undertaking. If we don't change anything, our consumption will increase over time. So, we have to figure out a way to avoid the increase first of all...then we have to find a way to actually make a decrease. 20% reduction in 10 years is very aggressive in my mind...and it will not be easy to do.

Thirdly...a tax on low mpg vehicles won't hurt anyone but the middle class and/or poor. Typically, poor folks drive older vehicles. Am I right? Older vehicles tend to be less efficient. Am I right? Now you want to hit them with a tax? We will not change our motoring public over to high-mpg vehicles overnight. If the lifespan of a vehicle is 10 years on average, that means you have a long time before you can completely replace all of them.

Forthly, there are people who have a genuine need for larger vehicles (not that I think anyone should have to prove their need). So, you want to penalize them for something beyond their control?

4) Bush encouraged Congress to keep permanently sound what he called "commitments of conscience" -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security."

Fix and save what he screwed up, nice..I'd like to know exactly which policy (or non-policy) of Bush's "screwed up" Social Security, Medicare, etc. I thought Bush gave a new prescription drug benefit to Medicare a few years ago.

It's simply considered polite I believe - usually even those folks there who don't agree with him will applaud.

I think it's stupid to be that polite.

SOYLENT GREEN:"a tax on low mpg vehicles won't hurt anyone but the middle class and/or poor. Typically, poor folks drive older vehicles. Am I right? Older vehicles tend to be less efficient. Am I right? Now you want to hit them with a tax? We will not change our motoring public over to high-mpg vehicles overnight. If the lifespan of a vehicle is 10 years on average, that means you have a long time before you can completely replace all of them.

Forthly, there are people who have a genuine need for larger vehicles (not that I think anyone should have to prove their need). So, you want to penalize them for something beyond their control?

Does a soccer Mom need a Hummer or a Dodge Ram? Does a second car have to be a Ford Explorer? Does Dad need a BMW X5 or Porsche Cayenne to drive 2 miles to catch his train?

It's nothing more than conspicuous spending, they don't have to switch to bullock carts or bicycles there are plenty of reliable mid-size vehicles out there which give good mileage and lower running costs.
A 4WD pickup with 300+ hp that is used for commuting is (IMHO) antisocial, if it's used by a tradesman in his business and hauls his equipment around, fine otherwise private users should pay big "environmental premiums" at POS to subsidise public transport.
Yes, poor folks tend to drive beaters, but they use them less for obvious economic reasons.
As for "changing overnight"- the last big oil scare in the 70's killed the muscle car overnight, the gigantic Caddys and Buicks went on sudden diets and people found it WAS possible to get more than 12mpg.
Imagine gas DOUBLING in price, will everybody just shrug and go with the flow? When filling the gas tank takes 2 C-notes people start figuring out what exactly they need to use a car for..
I don't want to spoil the fun, I love hot rods and big fire breathing street machines, but people have to get real, keep using it at this rate without guaranteed future supplies could lead to disaster.

Eh? I just listened to the speech about 1/2 hour ago, and I don't recall him mentioning anything of the sort? :confused: I also just pulled up a transcript of the speech, and did a text search for both "reserve" and "civilian" and couldn't find either one.

Here's the quote I lifted from CNN:

"A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Yes, it was indeed Wesley Clarks idea way back in 2004, so it's only taken Bush two years to claim it as his own. The Underlined part is the most worrying, I'm not sure what he actually means. Is he planning on slimming down the Army, Marines and Air Force by scrapping all non-combat posts? So you have combat forces supported by civilian employees - not something I'd relish if I were in the front line...

SOYLENT GREEN:"I'm guessing you'll still be way better off taking the employer's health plan. No one is going to opt out to save a few dollars in taxes because they'll be screwing themselves in the end"
------------------------
America has over 40 million people who lack health insurance but Bush claims that -- aside from poor children and the elderly -- "private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs." The proposal was for a standardized tax deduction of $7,500 for singles and $15,000 for families that would allow them to purchase a "basic private healthcare policy" -- code for the cheap, high-deductible plans that accompany those health savings accounts he's proposed in the past. It sounds good, but in fact the tax credits would discourage younger, healthier people from buying decent coverage -- taking them out of the risk pool and increasing rates for everyone else -- and provide a disincentive for preventive care.

I see that in fact the chair of the House Health Subcommittee, has already dismissed the idea of hearings.

Government health care would be a contradiction in terms.

Canada knows how bad government health care could be. That's why many of them come to the USA for their health care. the Brits know that their health care sucks, too.

The scariest words in all of history are: "I'm from the government and I am here to help you."

Government health care would be a contradiction in terms......the Brits know that their health care sucks, too.
----------------------

Correct! But don't blame the health care system, blame the scumbag politicians that insisted on tinkering with it, the National Health Service, introduced in 1948 ran successfully for many years and provided free healthcare for all. Starting with Thatcher the government decided to "improve" it by treating it like a business, they sold off the nurses homes for redevelopment, they dumped all ancillary staff and gave the work to private contractors and with Blair in power they introduced "targets" - this of course meant they had to insert layers of bureaurocracy to monitor performance, so healthcare became results driven, not can I cure this patient (oh, they became "customers") but how rapidly can I process him and use his bed for the next one.
As an example, because waiting rooms in the ER were crowded (due to insufficient medical staff) the "performance manager" ($100k pa) pressured the ER staff. The only way to reduce waiting time was to exclude patients from initial triage, so non-life threatening cases were left in the ambulance ( so technically, not waiting) or put on a gurney and left in corridors for up to TWELVE HOURS ( I can personally confirm this) so they were "not admitted to ward".
It's criminal what the politicians have done to the NHS, now they want to "privatise" large chunks of it so that hospitals will be run as businesses, for profit. Another example; the NHS has modern scanners, however since they wil only pay the technicians $40k nobody wants to work there, so a private contractor is supplying staff and it's own machines (at a higher cost) to run scanning throughout the country. The staff of the contractor are, of course the same people that wouldn't work for the NHS, why should they when they can get $100k+ for the same work?

Government has only ONE role in health care and that pertains to assuring that processes, materials and drugs are safe for use.

THAT is IT.

Government has only ONE role in health care and that pertains to assuring that processes, materials and drugs are safe for use.
THAT is IT.

But leaving it to private companies and market forces means that many people either cannot afford treatment or avoid regular checkups for economic reasons.
The US shouldn't have a total NHS like the British, but surely a safety net of low cost/no cost treatments subsidised by government is a good thing?

Another example: British dental care, once free is now almost totally privatised. As a result parents avoid taking young children for early checkups and the incidence of dental caries and tooth extraction in young people (under 25) has more than doubled in 10 years.
Translate that to NOT spotting early signs of diabetes, tuberculosis, asthma related diseases and subtle heart conditions and you store up a medical time bomb when all these nascent illnesses mature.

Government has only ONE role in health care and that pertains to
assuring that processes, materials and drugs are safe for use.
THAT is IT.
I have one great example that I think is a clear exception to your position on this MV.
I actually keep up on the latest scientific discoveries, reading about the latest discoveries each week in journals and all that. And there was something I read this week which is quite disturbing and illustrates why putting healthcare as a capitalist-only venture might be a bad idea.
Researchers discovered that a certain molecule, discovered 70 years ago, actually kills cancer cells and leaves non-cancerous cells alone. They need to do clinical trials, of course, but the initial research indicates it could possibly be a cure for cancer.
Because the molecule was discovered 70 years ago, though, it can't be patentned. So, the pharmaceutical companies are not willing to fund any research into this since they can't monopolize rights to the drugs developed. Instead, they are funding research to try and find another molecule, which they can patent, that does the same thing.
How many people have to die in the meantime while the companies seek for a profitable cure? I personally think our tax dollars should fund this research, because it's more important to save lives than guaruntee a profit to large corporations.

I have one great example that I think is a clear exception to your position on this MV.
I actually keep up on the latest scientific discoveries, reading about the latest discoveries each week in journals and all that. And there was something I read this week which is quite disturbing and illustrates why putting healthcare as a capitalist-only venture might be a bad idea.
Researchers discovered that a certain molecule, discovered 70 years ago, actually kills cancer cells and leaves non-cancerous cells alone. They need to do clinical trials, of course, but the initial research indicates it could possibly be a cure for cancer.
Because the molecule was discovered 70 years ago, though, it can't be patentned. So, the pharmaceutical companies are not willing to fund any research into this since they can't monopolize rights to the drugs developed. Instead, they are funding research to try and find another molecule, which they can patent, that does the same thing.
How many people have to die in the meantime while the companies seek for a profitable cure? I personally think our tax dollars should fund this research, because it's more important to save lives than guaruntee a profit to large corporations.


The more one researches pharmaceutical companies the more you find out what sick ****s they are, don't forget who supplied poison gas to the Nazi's.. Everything is about money for them, helping people comes after profit, and everybody who dies for reasons like you stated is blood on their filthy hands..

Isn't the goverment already funding research projects? I don't think research and general public healthcare fall under the same heading here... :/

Isn't the goverment already funding research projects? I don't think research and general public healthcare fall under the same heading here... :/
The US federal government certainly does fund research. But, they won't necessarily fund research that would put them in the position of eliminating potential profit for big pharmaceutical companies.
The research I mentioned in my previous post may be funded soon, but it will be because of a consortium of scientists that are trying to make it happen. Not because of corporations, and not because of the government.

I think that no matter what Bush or any of the Democrats say, taxes will be increased in the near future. The deficits we're running for these wars practically require it to happen.

No, they really don't. Federeal revenues are at an insane all time high. Congress just can't resist spending it. Until they can control spending (which will most likely never happen), we'll continue to borrow money year after year.

Politicians who claim that we need higher taxes are lying through their teeth. The numbers don't lie, but politicians do.

No, they really don't. Federeal revenues are at an insane all time high. Congress just can't resist spending it. Until they can control spending (which will most likely never happen), we'll continue to borrow money year after year.

Politicians who claim that we need higher taxes are lying through their teeth. The numbers don't lie, but politicians do.
It's not Congress who is requesting billion and billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan every year.
I totally agree that Congress spends way too much on stupid things, don't get me wrong. But right now we've got two branches of government spending like there is no tomorrow. The effects of this might can be delayed, but they can't be avoided forever.

I think that no matter what Bush or any of the Democrats say, taxes will be increased in the near future. The deficits we're running for these wars practically require it to happen.
The defecit's we're running are contributing negatively to the national debt and are horribly irresponsible in my opinion for a variety of reasons. However, our current debt as a percentage of GDP is not much to be concerned about in the short term (10 years). I'm more concerned with the precedent and also how the money is being thrown away (instead of wisely spent).

For example, during WWII, our national debt was 122% of GDP.

Today our national debt has grown to "reach 64.3% of GDP by 2005. It should be noted that the debt of United States is on par with the debt of other developed countries, such as Germany and France." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg