News Reasons To Vote For Kerry: Things He Will Do To Improve America

[BobG]

Most European countries are like that.
Belgian has always been in the UN top 5 on the list of countries with the highest quality of life, and has the best healthcare system in the world.

The tax rate is usually 40%-60%, depending on how much you make. If you make more money, you pay a higher percentage.
In return, we get unemployement fees when you're out of work, the governement pays pack about 95% of all medical expenses, and education is dirt cheap. It is even included in the constitution that lower and secondary education should be free. It's not, but it's so cheap that nobody complains anyway.

I don't want to be lumped in with Hillary's push for universal health care, but I do have to admit opponents managed to pick the very worst health care system in Europe as their example of what happens with socialized medicine. Most European countries do have better health care than the US (at least in terms of access - patient to doctor ratios). And, obviously, they do have much higher taxes.

I'm not sure how big of a tax increase I'd accept for universal health care, but the debate ought to at least focus on realistic costs/benefits vs. trotting out England's health care system as the model example of socialized medicine.

 

[Artman]

Since when did minimum wage jobs start paying for health insurance for their employees? Again, I wouldn't know about McDonalds, but I sure as hell never got any health benefits at the pit I worked at.

It's called worker's compensation. It is a form of mandated insurance that is paid for every employee.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that it's more important for high school kids to have jobs than it is for self-supporting adults to have jobs?

Not at all. We employed adults occassionally. One of the adults was paid about $3.00 over minimum an hour to do the scheduling and manage the employees. This job was worth more to us, so we paid more for her to do it. Sometimes an adult would ask for a job, we would hire them with the understanding that the job did not pay much but was not terribly demanding. All of our employees had the oppurtunity to increase their earnings by collecting late charges, we paid a commission on these.

So you were paying these kids minimum wage and they had a better income than you did? Did you ever consider maybe getting into a different line of work? If what you say is is true, I don't think your business would have been profitable no matter what.

We owned 7000 video tapes. What line of work would you like us to try? Technology changes were our main problem, not our management style. We were well liked in the community; cable TV was just more convenient. Closing a business is a lot more involved than just closing your doors and walking away. We ran the business at a loss for several years. Some people actually think of the customers and the employees (even though it was just minimum wage, at least it was a job.) and not just the bottom line. Our competition was a big corporate chain that didn't care if your child was sick and you couldn't get your movie back on time, or that you were just five minutes late bringing it back, they didn't care what type of movie you personally would enjoy.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for completely hijacking the thread and then even managing to change the subject of the hijack. By the way, what's a good example of a country with sweatshops? Thailand? If you're curious, 12 US cents is worth about 5 Thailand Bahts (their equivalent of the dollar), so if they really are making 12 cents an hour, that's only 15 cents less than our minimum wage.

Whoa now - I was with you until there. That's not how exchange rates work. If it were, you could buy a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke in Japan for 5 yen. Have a look at the current exchange rate...

I spent a weekend in Lithuania a couple of years ago. Their currency is arbitrarily tied to the US dollar - 4 of theirs equals one of ours. Doing the math, a pair of Nike's that cost $125 in the US still costs you $125US there.

Money systems have evolved separately and have separate bases. Even when based on gold, you wouldn't ever have people agreeing that $300, 300 British Pounds, 300 yen and 300 French Franks would buy you an ounce of gold.

If the US government suddenly printed 10x as much money as we have today, you'd see almost instantaneous 1000% inflation as the markets adusted to this new, arbitrary baseline.

 

[Artman]

I am aware of what worker's compensation is.

Worker's compensation is not the same thing as "health insurance." Health insurance implies having coverage when you go to the hospital, go to the doctor or need a prescription filled. You know, where you pay a deductible and the office visit is covered. (And I'm not saying that employers should be mandated to pay for this for minimum-wage employees--that's a whole other subject). In a previous post someone had said that all full-time employees making minimum wage at places like McDonald's have health insurance. I was pointing out to her that that is not true.

Her exact quote was:

...Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees.

This statement as listed above could include worker's compensation (catestropic coverage), social security (as a form of life insurance) medicare, liability, theft insurance also benefit the employee. Some minimum wage jobs carry additional coverage for certain tasks such as driving or working in hazardous environments. Additional health benefits, as you pointed out, would not be mandetory for part time workers.

 

[russ_watters]

The middle class, and the poor are getting poorer. When the price of oil rises sharply, the price of shipping food causes a rise in the price of food, and oil for heating, price of goods rise, due to shipping cost. When medical costs triple, and all other costs rise, but wages don't rise, and unemployment rises, and jobs go off shore, then the bottom drops out on people. I haven't even mentioned the fixed income people. They are really hurting.

That's inflation. Historical income numbers are adjusted for inflation. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html

 

[russ_watters]

First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz.

Secondly, I believe that the figure of the top 1% paying 90% of the federal taxes is off base, I've heard people like Sean Hannity saying that the top 10% pay 50% of the federal taxes, and I really doubt Hannity was low-balling it. I'd be more inclined to believe Njorl's stat.

Quite frankly, I haven't researched this like I said I would - busy weekend. I'll just plain concede. Njorl's numbers looked credible. That said, 30% for 1% is still quite a lot.

In response to your "who are you to say..." question: I am an American citizen, and I support the idea of taxing the richest 2% of Americans more than they currently are being taxed. Kerry will do this, so I support him, if enough people support Kerry, he will be elected and instate that policy, which is how democratic republics work.

Yes, that's how the democratic process is supposed to work, but is that specific opinion how the United States is supposed to work? The US is the first country founded on individual rights and the idea that the majority shouldn't have the power to take away the rights of a selected minority. The founding fathers called that a "tyranny of the majority."

All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut...

...a tax cut already implimented. I will continue to object to the framing of it that way. Supporting something that has already done is not the same as doing it yourself.

If you look at that chart, the dirt poor pay 10%, the poor pay 15%, and the lower-middle class pay 25%. It may be almost nothing in terms of the amount of money the federal govt. collects, but if you're only earning $30,000 a year, paying 1/4 of that means a lot to how you're able to live.

That's the marginal rate - the rate you pay on your last dollar of taxes, not the rate you pay on every dollar of taxes. And this has nothing to do with deductions (a single person with a $30,000 income is only taxed on at most $25,000) - even after you take out deductions and consider only the adjusted gross income, that's still not the actual average rate (except if you're in the bottom category).

What that table says is your first $7,000 gets taxed at 10%, your next $21,000 at 15%, and your next $40,000 at 25%. For someone on the low end of the 3rd bracked - say with a $35,000 adjusted gross, that's...

10% of $7,000 or $700
15% of $21,000 or $3,150
25% of $7,000 or $1,750

...for a total of $5,600 or 16%.

First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz.

I have no problem with arguing in a civil manner as long as the respect is mutual: mad props to you too.

 

[loseyourname]

No, I think you are. Maybe rent in Mississippi costs half as much as it does in California, but does food? How about diapers? Clothes? Electricity? The cost of living is not based on rent alone--that is your error in logic. You have a whole paragraph about how you and your suburban friends make $13 and hour (or whatever) for bussing tables. Just because it's been easy for you and your friends to find nice jobs at the mall, doesn't mean it's that easy for everyone.

Elizabeth, where the heck do you live? I've lived in both rural North Carolina and just outside of Los Angeles. I can assure you that $6 in NC goes about as far as $12 here. Obviously the exchange isn't exact - I never said it was. The point is that the cost of living is a lot higher here; and even higher in NYC, where I've also lived. You just seem to be ranting with no real intent. What is the point you're even trying to make?

No it doesn't. I implied that McDonald's qualifies as one of those types of jobs. I never said I worked at McDonald's--you just assumed that.

Elizabeth, does this matter? I'm very sorry that I misinterpreted where you worked. How does this change any of our arguments?

Where did I say that I worked my way through college on minimum wage jobs? Again, you have misquoted me. I said I worked at a one minimum wage job--I didn't work there when I was in college. Again, please read posts more carefully before you quote someone in error.

Fair enough, but this still goes toward proving my point. There is no good reason why someone should be working a minimum wage job for that long. The point is that you were able to work your way through despite not yet having an education. You weren't nefariously stopped in your tracks by evil Republicanly low minimum wage laws.

Just to see if we can this on some semblance of a productive track, what exactly do you think we'd accomplish by raising the minimum wage? What would be the advantage to the country?

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, I don't work right now. I get plenty of money from financial aid. I said my girlfriend and her brother make good money in food service jobs. They also make minimum wage - the money they take in is tip money.

 

[russ_watters]

Right now the minimum wage is $5.15. Kerry wants to raise it incrementally to $7.00 by 2007. I would assume most people with entry level jobs make that much now. Do we have any entry level employees out there that can provide us with numbers?

Problem: what is "entry level?" I was an entry level engineer in my current job - I started at $44k...

By the same token, a buddy of mine worked in a marketing company (he has a degree) and entry level there was $19k.

In any case, $7 by 2007 is reasonable.

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.

Actually, even percentagewise the rich are getting richer faster and the US does have one of the worst ratios of any country. But by the same token, the US also has among the "richest" poor people. The knife cuts both ways.

Although I cannot believe that someone making only $76,000 per year would be considered upper middle class. I think Russ had some more realistic figures.

Income stats are tough (mine were from the census bureau): I'm both an individual and a household. I would certainly say an individual making $76k is upper-middle class. But not a "household" (by my definition, a faimly of 3 or more).

I'm also not sure about gross vs adjusted gross: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html table doesn't say, but the lower limit for the top 5% in 2002 was $150k.

 

[amp]

Russ:

...But by the same token, the US also has among the "richest" poor people. The knife cuts both ways.

Really, compared to who the rest of the world? There is a shred of truth in what you say but in the cut is the siphoning off of these 'riches' to further line the pockets of those who least need it.

 

[russ_watters]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ?

Most European countries have both significantly higher tax rates and significantly more services.

How about this, what if the average income per household(family) were $200,000 ? What do you think the Bell Curve would look like?

by Bell Curve, you mean IQ? It would help a lot.

Could the tax code be restructured so that such a redistribution could take occur?

Not unless we somehow manufacture more money. The average is the sum total of all incomes divided by the number of families. Redistributing wealth does not change the average.

What would the poverty level be in such a case?

Depends on how one chooses to define "poverty." Using income brackets, the poverty level is perpetually 20% by definition. It is interesting to see how the average or the limits of each income bracket has changed historically: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html . In 2002, for example, the upper limit of the bottom 5th was $17,900 while in 1967 it was $13,700 (inflation adjusted - 2nd table). Someone right on that line in 2002 was 23% "richer" than someone on that line in 1967.

The Census Bureau actually uses a complicated formula for poverty, though it is based largely on income vs need (ie, poverty level is different if you have 1 child than if you have 2). http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html is some info.

 

[russ_watters]

Really, compared to who the rest of the world? There is a shred of truth in what you say but in the cut is the siphoning off of these 'riches' to further line the pockets of those who least need it.

I'll need to look for the data so I don't put my foot in my mouth again, but AFAIK, the US compares favorably to western Europe (though not near the best because of socialism), and is far above the rest of the world.

Again, the knife cuts both ways - mild socialism causes an artificially low poverty line while at the same time causing high unemployment. Take it further and you can decrease unemployment to near zero, at the cost of dropping a large portion of your country into poverty (USSR).

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the poop.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the top quintile bore 65% of the taxes. That's now lower with Bush's selective tax cuts.

... higher than its 25 year low of 57%.

That because increases have always been enacted to offset inflation, which is perfectly fair. That is all an increase should do. There is no mandate to enact a living wage. People who are supporting themselves should not be working minimum wage jobs. Heck, the first job I ever had paid $12/hr. It isn't that difficult to find decent money if you really look. Even when I have taken lower paying jobs, I was always promoted quickly and soon made decent money.

In high school I was a temp making between $8 and $13. [in most parts of the country] There is no excuse for someone to be trying to support themselves or their family on minimum wage.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that it's more important for high school kids to have jobs than it is for self-supporting adults to have jobs? No high school kid I know goes hungry because they don't have a part-time job. In fact, most of them have jobs so they can buy clothes and CDs (I didn't say ALL, I said most). Wouldn't it be more useful for society to raise the wage a little and give adult wage-earners a chance to support themselves and their kids? And at the same time, you're getting employees who are dependent on their jobs, and maybe a more hard-working and reliable.

I really think you're looking at it backwards - Kids take low skill, low pay jobs because they are low skill, low pay jobs: kids can't do anything else and aren't worth anything else. If you suddenly doubled the pay, would the real value of the job be any higher? Adults should work higher pay, higher skill jobs because adults should have the skills to be worth he extra money. You don't somehow become worth more just because you need more money to live on. Freedom means you have to earn what you get.

You make it sound like these jobs are abundant "as long as you look hard enough." That's not correct.

No - jobs are abundant (and well paying) as long as you work hard enough (and smart enough).

I agree--I don't think any employer should pay an employee more than they're worth.

Then why did you say McDonalds should pay more for adults to do the same job as kids? What makes those adults worth more money? It sounds like you are combining "need" with "worth."

I take it you've never had to work at McDonald's or some other crappy fast-food or retail job. I have. I earned $4.25 an hour (minimum wage back then). I know I worked harder there than I ever did at any other job, and I deserved more than $4.25 an hour.

Just because some jobs take effort doesn't make them worth more more than another job. Anyone (and I mean anyone) can do that job. It requires no skill or knowledge (and not even much in the way of an IQ). That's the whole reason its so well suited for kid. Not everyone can be a doctor. It takes skill and knowledge.

Ripping people off? You don't sound very grateful that McDonald's gave you a job. Where does this attitude of entitlement come from? You people act like it's your birthright as an American to live a middle-class lifestyle. God forbid you actually have to work for something. An employee is not paid based on how hard he works. He is paid based on how much he is worth. Presumably had you quit and not been replaced, McDonald's would not have lost much more than $5 or so an hour. Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees. There are also overhead costs such as lease and food-service licensing and franchise fees.

Its the new American (Democratic) Way, loseyourname and it sickens me - and is harming our country.

 

[Evo]

Income stats are tough (mine were from the census bureau): I'm both an individual and a household. I would certainly say an individual making $76k is upper-middle class. But not a "household" (by my definition, a faimly of 3 or more).

I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle.

 

[loseyourname]

Jeez, Elizabeth. Would you relax? No one here seems to getting angry about people having dissenting opinions other than you. I'm also not a female. Since you're so keen on very carefully reading and never misinterpreting another's posts, I've mentioned about 73 times now that I have a girlfriend.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, I think I look a lot like Scarlett Johansson. Now that's funny.

 

[Artman]

Ask anyone who works a fast food job how much they make. If the minimum wage is $5.15/hr in their state, I guarantee you they're not starting at $7.00/hr. I used to make minimum wage (many years ago, thank goodness) and I went hungry trying to live on that amount. It just doesn't seem right to me that someone working full time (no matter what they do) should still be going hungry--not in this country. Yes, raising the minimum wage may hurt some small businesses, but it is not going to put McDonald's or Burger King out of business. Raising the price of a Big Mac by 10 cents isn't going to hurt anyone. Is $7.00 an hour really too much to ask?

I looked back to try and find your initial response to the overall question. I did not find one.

I believe this was your first response. I can agree with the idea of your entire post. The problem is, how do you limit the increase to those who can afford it, such as the burger giants?

Seriously, I still would like to read your response to the overall question of this thread: What do you believe that Kerry will do? If I missed it, please direct me to it (it's a little hard to find using a dialup modem. Mr. Kerry has a bill pending to install infrastructure for high speed internet in low income housing, unfortunately I am not quite low enough income to be in that demographic, so I can't afford high speed internet. Sorry, couldn't resist the dig at Mr Kerry. )

 

[loseyourname]

You know what sickens me? Elitist snobs who don't have the tiniest bit of compassion for other "imperfect" human beings.

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect.

Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine.

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405. Do you know who fixed them? Me. Not the government, not my parents (they wanted to, but I wouldn't let them), not even a compassionate friend. Me. That's called personal responsibility and its important to me. I'd rather fail trying than have success handed to me on a platter.

I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle.

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

 

[Evo]

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed.

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed.

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so.

Thanks. "Elitist snob" is a pretty common reaction to conservative ideas though. It doesn't bother me (thought the death of personal responsibility scares the hell out of me).

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine.

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread. I never mentioned your financial situation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you own a mansion.

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405.

Somehow, in the scheme of things, I really doubt that your "mistakes" would upset me that much.

That's called personal responsibility and its important to me.

It's very important to me, too. It's important to a lot of people who aren't Republicans, believe it or not.

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

I bought my first house when I was 27 (and single). I just sold last month for a huge profit. Does that make me more "personally responsible" than you? No, of course it doesn't. My situation is different than yours, just like the guy working the $6.00 an hour job is different than yours. I don't believe in hand-outs either--God knows I never got a free ride. There are people out there, however, who aren't as intelligent, or have physical or mental limitations. Are they somehow worth less as people because they didn't own a house when they were 30, or because they're adults and have a minimum wage job? Hey, if they don't want to work, then I don't have much sympathy for them either. I have problems with the welfare system in this country, too. But there are lots of people who aren't quite smart enough to succeed in college and become doctors or lawyers. They have jobs, and they work just as hard as you and I do. They don't deserve to be screwed over. Be thankful that you've been gifted with enough intelligence and enough drive to make a comfortable life for yourself, and stop ripping on everyone else who isn't quite that fortunate.

 

[Artman]

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread.

I don't think you know Russ or others on this thread very well. You should refrain from name-calling it does nothing to further your point of view, which I am still waiting to read.

What do you think Mr. Kerry will do as President? You appear to be a Kerry supporter, what are your expectatons?

 

[amp]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

 

[JD]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both!

 

[Artman]

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both!

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

 

[JD]

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

We can effectively ignore everything that is said before election so, once they are elected, we won't be as dissappointed as we would have been had we compared their promises list with what they are doing now.
The thing is, whether the gaping chasm is pointed out to them or not, a way will be found to make us feel good about such things as hospital closures, high inflation and so on.

It would be naive to think that any system can provide everyone with everything they need. But we could have a worse system than we have.

 

[amp]

Actually, said with optimism.

 

[JD]

A slightly worrying basis for a country's political system.

 

[Evo]

I am not "name-calling" by calling someone elitist. If you want to take on the subject of name-calling, perhaps you (and the moderators of this forum) should deal with the individual who called someone a "dickhead" in another thread yeasterday. Ooops, I forgot, that person is right-wing just like you, so they can say whatever they want and get away with it.

Personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. I looked yesterday when you mentioned this and could not find the post, the poster may have thought better of it and edited it out.

You may report a post if you feel it is inappropriate and a mentor will take action if necessary.

I know it is hard to remain calm when discussing certain issues, but again I ask that everyone stop and rethink your posts before you hit "submit". Remember, people may be more willing to listen your your views if you present them with a bit less hostility.