Congress passes landmark health care bill

[George008]

The most logical approach to return to that glory of a solvent country would be less government, less spending, and a reduction in entitlement programs. Unfortunantly we are headed in the complete opposite direction.

[quartermainefan]

That is just conservative mantra which has never been proven. If there is any data showing how cutting entitlement programs led to any benefit to the country, I have yet to see it.

[George008]

You just wrote about how our country was better off in the 50's. There was far less encroachment of government during that era. Since then government has expanded endlessly. Just take a look at the number of cabinet members/ government departments during Eisenhower's administration vs. Obama's.

Its really not hard to prove or understand, the more debt our government creates the more strain it puts on the taxpayer.

Can you really argue that adding debt through spending on entitlement programs or new departments of government has benefited the middle class? The fact is, they cost money and cut into our gross domestic product and everyone's income.

You said it yourself....we have increased inflation, lower incomes, less government solvency, and an erosion of the middle class. What do you propose is the cause? Are you seriously saying we aren't taxed enough?

Why not reduce spending and keep taxes where they are or even lower them? Its simple math, really. The less we have to pay for, the better.

Let's reduce the scale. If you were overloaded with personal credit card debt, would you keep spending and adding to the debt if your goal was to become solvent? No. Or at least I hope not. You could increase your income, but the most logical route would be to spend less.

This tax tax tax spend spend spend mentality is a very dangerous spiral.

[NorrthCafe]

The role of government has changed because were are an infinitely more complex society now than we were in the 1950s. Government 'encroachement' is a reflection of the increased needs of the population. There were no effective Civil Rights Bills in the 50s, there are now and we need government structures that reflect that.

Did you know that early HUD documents advocated NOT SELLING to Minority populations? Our official government documents suggested that some groups of people would drive down property values... imagine that.

The GI Bill technically covered all GI's (minorities and women included).... that just wasn't the reality for most. Those lovely little low cost housing loans available to GI's post WWII that helped create generational wealth for many often didn't include minority groups. Nearly half of college students were returning GIs by the time the bill made funding available for them. How many were minorities? What were the generational effects of not making sure all GIs could equally access that benefit?

We didn't have an EPA then or a clear understanding of our long term impact on nature. The Grand Canyon, anyone?

Marriage equality is the 'civil rights' issue for the LGBTQ community as Civil Equality was for "racial" minorities like myself.

Health Care and education are the 'civil rights' issues for the poor and even for some middle income families as Civil equality was for "racial" minorities.

Government SHOULD be involved. The way I understand the modern conservative argument is that people should make it on their own. Corporations should not. People may die not making it on their own and we can accept that (despite the fact that many people can't work their way out of poverty no matter how many jobs they pick up - and most poor are WORKING poor). Corporations should be allowed to use the tax dollars we provide that we're not supposed to use for ourselves. We must protect their fragility and not let them rise and fall on their own merit.

We're not concerned enough about 'ingenuity' to allow smaller businesses to spring up and take their places when the big boys fail. We should continue to subsidize them and reduce THEIR tax burden... The rest of us? We should be able to make it on our own merit and keep paying taxes getting less and less for it.

Just like I don't want the dentistry, or medicine of the 1950s, I don't want the government of the 1950s either. Clinton reduced the deficit and he left us with a surplus - and we still had entitlement programs. The programs aren't the problem. Americans being more responsible with determining who RUNS them is. I don't care if you want to have a beer with the Pres... do you want that person balancing the nation's checkbook and if that's the criteria, Bush should have never been allowed in office.

[quartermainefan]

As we can see using every economic measure from average wages adjusted for inflation, to the disparity between the top and bottom of society, to the disparity between CEO salaries and their employees, to the fall in savings, to the percentage of debt as part of the budget...to almost anything really...that it has proven to not be better. There are things society needs that must be paid for. Police and fire depts are a great example of something it is only a shame there are not more tax dollars for. Where does your theory end? Why not eliminate schooling? How about the authorities who make sure our water is clean? If there was no social security sending out the much needed poverty level income to millions of seniors, where would they get their meager money from?

I would reduce the budget but it would hardly be from the much needed scraps handed out to the poor. There are billions to be saved from outdated military purchases the government refuses to cancel because of cushy agreements with what was once called "the military industrial complex". Also, I think like Great Britain before us, it might be time to reconsider our role in the world. We house something like 30,000 soldiers in Germany. Can you tell me what for?

[George008]

Millitary spending is the backbone of our entire country. If our world was all petals of roses this wouldn't be the case, unfortunately dangers have always and probably will always exsist.

Millitary spending has allowed for our discussion today. Our freedoms and liberties did not fall out of the sky.

Virtually all other aspects of government's budget that we currently have could be handled in the private sector.

I never said I want to eliminate police, schools, or fire departments. I thought our discussion was about the federal government. Local government has for the most part been very successful with sales and property taxes to fund these needed basics for our society.

The social security subject is a complex one. We all know that this program has run its course and can not sustain future generations. I propose that we have an option going forward to save a portion of our income for retirement privately. The funds are taken out of our income anyway. I feel that I can save for retirement on my own without the government's assistance. Do you feel they would do a better job of saving for your retirement than you could for yourself? Why does government need to obtain and redistribute wealth for retirement? It has obviously not worked, which can be said of most federal programs.

The federal government is simply too large and still growing. Where does your theory end? Complete socialism/communism?

CEOs, for the most part would fall into the top 3% of income earners and currently pay upwards of 50% of the income tax.

I personally feel that what makes our country great is that everyone has the potential and opportunity to earn whatever they desire. I find it disturbing that anyone would want to infringe on someone's personal right to earn and obtain wealth. Scary stuff. Personally, it would kill my ambition if the government had the right to delegate my salary.

We are in Germany because, like it or not, we are the world's super power. With this responsibility comes the strategic placement of our millitary in many different parts of the world. We've reached this level due to our aggressive Capitolistic economic structure.

I understand that some feel that it is to the detrement of our domestic well being to "police" the world. I would rather the US to remain the world's most powerful nation, because I feel that our liberty and freedom is something everyone in the world should benefit from.

Which country would you propose lead the world?

[George008]

Actually, modern conservatives want lower taxes across the board, not just for corporations. Remember hearing about the Bush tax cuts? We will feel the impact when the Dems let them expire, which they have said they will do.

Corporations are "the people". They are not the enemy. They employ millions and provide products and/or services. If we raise taxes on say....Coca Cola, what would you expect to happen to the price of a Coke? What would potentially happen to Coke employees? Higher taxes do not impact a company as the greedy entity in which they are protrayed. Corporate taxes impact jobs and prices on the shelf. Does this make sense?

I see where you are coming from in that CEOs make large salaries (for which they are heavily taxed by the way) but this is a seperate situation than taxing the companies themselves.

I feel you have the right continue to have this millitant and combative attitude towards big business, but I would take it that you don't want nice cars, cell phones, soft drinks, cable television, department stores...etc. Or you must want to pay more them.

We could go this route but I think it would impact our quality of life.

I'm all for small business and ingenuity. That's how all of the neat stuff we take for granted began. What happens when government delegates all aspects of life for us? Where is that motivation to spawn that ingenuity going to come from? If we keep taxes low and government out of the equation individuals will have all of the opportunity in the world.

I do feel healthcare is something that all Americans should receive. That's the way our system works now. No one can be refused in an emergency room.

Health INSURANCE however is NOT a right!

I'm still in shock that our government is going to MANDATE its citizens to purchase something. I'm willing to bet the farm that independents, conservatives, and even some moderate liberals will voice their opinions in November. It may be decades before Democrats regain a majority after 2010.

[quartermainefan]

Considering how rigged Wall Street is where by the time you are buying the stock the insider traders and those in the know are already selling at the higher price, no, I don't think the whole privatization scheme of social security as cooked up by those complicit with the fraud should be enacted. This is what Bush wanted when the Dow was at 15,000 and conservative crackpots were forecasting 36,000. Where would those seniors be today? Social security has worked, seeing as how it is now decades in operation and the checks are still going out. When we reach a point where it does not work, maybe we can reexamine it, but it seems highly cynical to have a budget of $1 with say 40 cents for entitlements, have the government balance the budget, then say ok we are cutting taxes and our budget is now 80 cents. Oh look, we are 20 cents short, we have to cut entitlements!" No you don't, you just need to put the taxes back to where you were balancing budgets.

Clintons tax rates worked. The statistics show this. Now thanks to years of a war of choice against a country that never attacked us, the country is hocked up to the empire state building. So, as every president has done in the past including Lincoln, raise taxes in war time to pay for the war.

[GoldenDogs]

Hi Bell...

We've got start somewhere, yes, so why not start small and, as has been suggested repeatedly by both Republicans and Democrats not fans of this broad, sweeping, country-changing bill, why not open up competition to the market and let companies compete across state lines and around the country? Why maintain these regional monopolies? Break them up by allowing interstate commerce and choice. Competition opens things up... always has.

Let's be honest... all children receive free health care. There isn't a state in the union that will deny access to a child, or doesn't provide a program for free immunizations, free dental care, etc. I often drive past a market here and see a huge Healthy Families fan doling out care to folks standing in line, children in hand.

Health care isn't a right... it's something that you strive for in the choices you make. Are you poor? Then there is a program that is extended to you so that you can get the education you need to move forward and secure a good job with benefits. I don't buy for one second that the victimized among us have no options. Anyone can stagger into an emergency room and get free care... or simply refuse to pay for it and disappear into the night.

Reform health care? Sure... moderately and smartly over a period of time. If government cuts waste, it would be possible to achieve it in a way that makes everyone happy. This obviously wasn't the best way.