Thank you to both digger and leeroy for your thoughts. I can't possibly look at all the opinions available but I do spend a lot of time following some of the major arguments presented by the various sides. I know where I stand because I have taken the time to examine what I want and compare it to what others are saying. As of now, I prefer to lean Democratic because I see in that party a sensitivity to the plight of seniors the sick and the poor. I don't doubt that the Republican party wishes no harm to seniors and the poor but I do not get the impression that the thrust of their effort is focused on those who can't help themselves and are forced to depend on the good graces of their government. I don't want to see the aid that the government provides diminished in favor of wealth. Wealth is, of course, a great thing to happen. Limited income and degraded senior health is not so great. I am on the side that would bend the direction of government to that which watches out for the immediate care and treatment of the poor, sick, senior, etc. portion of its constituency. In recent years wealth has been concentrated in the top 2% of the population but the Ryan (Republican) plan provides for wealthy tax cuts but bends toward cutting medicare and medicaid — it just doesn't offer effective, swift aid to those in greatest need. Delay in addressing aid to the needy can mean that the need for aid quickly becomes irrelevant. I'll make this my last rant here since I don't want to monopolize space in this posting. Once again, I thank those who contribute to it.

The meaning of "poor" that I use is those people who are at or below the poverty line. The "poor" and elderly live with limited incomes and they generally have no hope of improving on their standing. As most people realize, health deteriorates as one grows older or becomes poorer. Giving them a $15,000 health voucher that falls far short of what a 75 year old will need for a heart condition or end stage renal disease is more than questionable. Seniors or the poor can't expect that their bank account will make up the needed difference between a voucher and the premiums. They do not get $25,000 to more than $130,000 extra money as a result of a tax cut. And it is ludicrous to think any insurance company would provide a premium within the reach of the poor or fixed income seniors. Notwithstanding the so called "free" benefits, many of which are a result of being good citizens prior to age or financial standing, the poor and seniors would have social and health services limited or denied entirely (example: cutbacks on health assistance). Entitlements by their very name indicate that people "have a legal right or just claim" ("Entitle" — Dictionary v1.0.2 ©2006, Apple Computer, Inc.) to the benefits such governmental plans provide! Thankfully, the wealthy, through their government, have a moral and social compact with those in society who do not "enjoy" the benefits which wealth brings. While many of the wealthy contribute to church and other charitable programs, many others who are wealthy knowingly or unknowingly defer their social and moral responsibility for assistance to the poor through the taxes they pay. A change in the way these benefits are figured which has the effect of reducing them, means that the poor and seniors who are no longer receiving such benefits are indeed paying for tax cuts for the wealthy. Even tax funds are fungible and as a result, the poor and seniors are getting the short end of the tax stick. So, put more clearly, why do the poor and seniors pay more while the wealthy get more?