Kerry battling Bush on health care

Health care is a big issue for me, and having health care attached to income seems SO wrong to me. I'm glad to see a first step toward getting health care to all kids, regardless of their parents' incomes.

Between John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, I hope we have one long, unrelenting, four year one-two punch aimed squarely at the solar plexus of the Bush administration and its "to-do" list.

Oh yes, while I'm thinking of it...SCREW Joe Biden and his ilk. I'm almost ready to add "Screw Joe Biden" to my signature line.

as the INVESTMENTS FOR THE FUTURE that they really are. Americans want to plan for the future and for their children's world.

He has to push for high paying jobs first IMHO.

Without income, a strong middle class, I don't see where the money
is coming from.

Yes, this is an outrage, the US and health care in general and
the complete disregard for children in this country (love those
anti-abortionists, won't give a dime to support the family now
will they)...

but without good jobs and also restructing the tax code (now a rich
and corporate welfare system) plus restructuring the out of control
defense spending (privitization, isn't it costing way more now?)

I don't see where the money is going to come from.

One of the reasons I think Kerry had a hard time in the elections
is because he voted for every bad trade agreement that now has us
in this mess.

The way to increase high paying jobs is to decrease incentive for low-paying outsourcing. Another way is to level the playing field for small businesses (i.e. actually charging major corporations taxes, ensuring the government counteracts monopolies, etc). Just trying to address the wage levels alone is like taking medication for lung cancer while still smoking 5 packs/day; you need to address the root of the problem.

It's funny, though... I have no evidence offhand to back it up, but it's been my observation that when general social amneties are provided to the poor, despite the majority of the burden falling on the upper class, the wages, etc rise. Communism, of course, is the extreme exception, but if the poor are in such a condition that they are healthy, willing and able to get the higher education, they will pursue the jobs that enable them to leave the class they arose from.

But the "free trade" agreements are NOT free trade...
they are for multinational corporations (a giveaway) and an American
worker cannot compete against 10 dollar an hour wages for R&D engineering and accounting.

This is basically a "decrease incentive" portion of the puzzle...
with many other elements.

see www.noslaves.com for references on the Medusa nature of the problem.

As far as your observation, it is backed up with studies and stats...when labor was strongest
and the US had a strongly progressive tax system...the US economy
grew at incredible rates. (I guess they didn't like the fairly flat
nature of the stock market but all other indicators were hot rockets).

That's what's so amusing about all of this and why it appears the real motivation is to destroy the middle class...for when the middle class
is strong (and keeping people out of poverty as well as giving them
opportunities to pull out of whatever hole they just fell into is part of it) the economy is strong.

The problem with correlation is there are so many variables...
those corporate sponsored economists try to claim the increase
in overall economic growth and standard of living is due to factor y...i.e. they try to negate the benefits of social safety nets.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

It's just common sense that if a country invests in its workers, businesses will invest in that country. America used to have the happiest, healthiest and best educated workers in the world, and that was when we were the most prosperous. However, as services for the poor and working class have declined, and as healthcare and education have become harder to obtain, we've fallen backwards as a society as well.