# News Things Kerry will do.

1. Jul 28, 2004

### wasteofo2

Alot of people are saying that the Democrats unity and desire to get John Kerry elected isn't really pro-Kerry, but rather anti-Bush, and that he just happens to be the guy who isn't Bush. Even if this is true, and no one thinks John Kerry is great, I think it speaks volumes about Bush's presidency when you bassically have Bush vs. This stiff, stuffy, distant guy, and they're tied in most polls, with the "other guy" having slight leads in many.

So, bassically, if you're actually for Kerry, and not just against Bush, I'd like to see why. I don't want to see what Bush's done poorly, but how you think Kerry will do better, things that are specific to Kerry and his vision for America. I'm not looking for things like "People hate Kerry less than Bush in the world", but things like I'm going to list below

Some examples I can think of:
- He wants to actually keep the tax cuts Bush instated for 98% of Americans, but roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%.
- He wants to raise the minimum wage.
- He is for giving federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research (at least I believe he is).
- He hasn't let the church shape his political stances (so much so that some want him ex-communicated:rofl:)
- He wants to double the amount of special forces in our military.
- He was a war hero, made decisive decisions in battle and reportedly served outstandingly, and he would hopefully act just that way as the commander of our military.
- He will try to get NATO involved in helping the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan so that less American soldiers are needed to fight and die.

Also, if you are voting for Bush, and fear the prospect of a Kerry presidency, list specific reasons you think he'd do worse than Bush. I'm sure you get the point of what I'm looking for, and I'm sure Bush supporters could think of much better reasons that Kerry would suck than I could.

And of course, if the Bush supporters/Kerry detractors think that any of my reasons to vote for Kerry are wrong, off-base, misleading etc., please criticize them.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2004
2. Jul 29, 2004

### Dissident Dan

He also will work to better our environmental policy and reduce our dependence on oil. Given his extremely high environmental voting record (www.lcv.org), I find his promises to work toward these goals credible. He has also taken a position in favor of small farmers over corporate giants, which, if he follows through, would be a godsend.

3. Jul 29, 2004

### wasteofo2

Can't believe I forgot about the environment, alternate energy sources and fighting big corporations. Damn, I need to get back in touch with why I'm a liberal.

4. Jul 29, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Hook, line, sinker.

He wants to keep taxes the same for some people, but increase taxes ("rolling back a cut" is an increase) for others. So where are these cuts that you say he's going to make?

In any case, this is more of the neo-liberal 'rich people are evil' mantra. But wait, is it really new or just re-emerging? What did Marx say about it...?

5. Jul 29, 2004

### wasteofo2

Yeah, he wants to keep Bush's tax cuts/re-institute Bush's tax cuts/make them permanent etc for the lower 98% of Americans. I'm not sure if he would introduce more tax cuts for the 98% of American's in question though, I worded that poorly, thanks for pointing that out.

Honestly, I'm very sick of every attempt by a Democrat to tax rich people being compared to communism. As I'm sure you know, before Bush's $1 trillion tax cut, the American people payed$1 trillion more in federal taxes under clinton, would you have called 192-2000 America's "Communist" phase? If you want to draw comparisons between Kerry and Marx, I'm sure that Democrats could draw many comparisons between Bush and Nitzche or Bush and Machiaveli, but I think that kind of mud-slinging is just unproductive and childish.

Wanting to tax the people who earn more money more than people who earn less money isn't saying that they are evil, I have no idea where you get that from. As many wealthy Democrats will point out, the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already VERY RICH, and don't need these tax cuts. Bill Clinton does not need a huge check in the mail just for being rich, while a poor family in a neighborhood near you might benefit greatly from that same money.

Also, we are fighting a war and trying to rebuild two countries. Guns, tanks, armor, soldiers pay etc. is expensive, who would you rather help pay for all of this, the family who's father works as a McDonald's cashier and a mother who works as a file clerk, or the family who's father works as a lawyer and mother works as a surgeon?

Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that$81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the$1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people who really don't need it anyway.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2004
6. Jul 29, 2004

### kat

While you're throwing this 2% wealthiest person number around, for my own benefit, could you please define what the actual income is of the 2% wealthiest?
What exactly is Kerry's plan to implement tax increases on the 2% wealthiest. How much and through what form of taxation?

7. Jul 29, 2004

I believe Kerry wants to tax income over $200,000 per year at the 2000 rate rather than the rate instituted by the Bush tax cuts. Kerry has two very good plans for medical insurance 1. A federal single-payer system covering any uninsured child. 2. Catastrophic reinsurance for medical insurance providers. Njorl 8. Jul 29, 2004 ### JohnDubYa For his sake, he needs to do a better job of rounding up support for his plan than Hillary. 9. Jul 29, 2004 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor You miss my point. It isn't the government's total tax income that is getting on my nerves, its targeting the rich to create an us-vs-them division. It very closely parallels the marxist bourgeois (the 2% who are rich) vs the proletariat (everyone else who is not - regardless of the fact that most of that group is still quite well off). The implication is made the the rich are not paying their way (the top 1%, btw, pay upwards of 90% of all income taxes). They are a drain on society, they get their wealth handed to them, they exploit everyone else. Yes, "evil" is an exaggeration, but the message sent is 'these people need to be stopped before they can hurt us any more.' Whether you realize it or not, that is Marxism. You have arbitrarily decided that their income needs to be capped. Another common fallacy (not unquely liberal). I hate it when my friends get all excited in April when they find out what their refund is. Yes, it is literally a check in the mail - but it is a refund. It means its money you shouldn't have paid. Similarly, a tax cut is not "a check in the mail," its just less money you have to pay. And is another fallacy there: the poor pay so little in taxes (most pay just about nothing, and that's before you count the handouts they get), that you can't give them a tax cut. "Tax cuts for the rich" is redundant! Of course tax cuts will primarily go to the rich: the rich are the ones paying the taxes! The rich person already does pay for virtually all of that . Do the math: since the top 1% pays 90% of all taxes, that means that the averge person in the top 1% pays a thousand times more in taxes than the average of the rest of the population: 1/.1/.01 = 1000. 10. Jul 29, 2004 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor More on "tax cuts for the rich." Lets say the government today passed an across the board reduction of every tax rate by 10%. Seems fair, right? Wrong. In Liberalese, that means the richest 1% got 90% of the tax cut! That second stat is thrown around all the time (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but that is the correct ratio) - I've heard it at the convention a handful of times, and I haven't even been watching much. Do any liberals really understand the difference? 11. Jul 29, 2004 ### Njorl The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22 [Broken] Njorl Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 12. Jul 29, 2004 ### Dayle Record I read an article in Business Week, from which this information came. This all helps to explain why wealth has taken on a much larger role in sustaining U.S. economic growth. But the growing importance of wealth widens the social and economic chasm between rich and poor. Ownership of assets is highly concentrated, far more than income. The top 1% of families, as measured by net worth, receive about 15% of income but own 30% of the nation's assets -- including stocks and bonds, homes, and closely held businesses. That's according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The top 10% of families, as measured by net wealth, own 65% of assets, and the top 50% own a stunning 95% of assets. That means the gains from rising wealth have effectively left out half the population. The entire article is located at http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/14_16/b3879051.htm When I read this particular section, I realized that our security as a nation becomes unbalanced when basically a slave class is being created, whether by intent, or consequence. The figure was this staggering 50% of wealthiest individuals owning 95% of our economy. That means that maybe 85% of Americans have 5% of our economy to share among themselves, but they put in the effort to run the big machine. Also that means that both parents must work, and one parent, more than one job. It means that a jump in the cost of medical care, takes already limited assets away in a highly stressed system. Then they are expected to offer up their best and brightest to perpetuate this system. Or they are encouraged to die as foot soldiers to support the security of this nation. We came to this nation to escape involuntary servitude, and feudal systems, are we returning to that mode, when the numbers are so out of balance? Safety in numbers? Not in these numbers. When water to grow food is diverted to water golf courses, and hydrate expensive houses, they say oh, "What no food, let them eat mangoes from Mexico, the labor is cheap down there." There should be no sub-middle class. If we are the most wealthy nation in the world, why are we poor? I want to see a return to proper human values, I am hoping that John Kerry, John Edwards, and the American People can deliver it to us. We have to realize as a nation that survival of the fittest is a big, big picture. We have to be fit to survive as a species, and the value of the most greedy, the most compassionless, the most convenient, has to not just take a back seat, but has to be demolished as an acceptible societal means. This is one of the big reasons that human values have to be taught in school, from day one, not religion. Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017 13. Jul 29, 2004 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor I'll need to research this. I must be honest and admit that I was repeating an often cited number that I haven't researched myself (yeah, even I fall for it every now and then). Regardless, 30% for 1% is still 43 times the average of "everyone else." No, it isn't 1000 times, but its still an awful lot. Anyway, I'll look into this more and respond fully tonigh. edit: math error. Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 14. Jul 29, 2004 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor However, I must respond to some fo these now: The conclusion in the last sentence doesn't follow from the rest - the rest of the paragraph says nothing at all about "rising wealth." To say 50% have been "left out" of the gains from rising wealth, you have to show that that 50% has not gotten more wealthy. Again, "being created" implies that that bottom 50% is getting poorer. It isn't. Since income classes are defined by population percentages (first fifth, second fifth, etc) there will always be a "sub-middle class" because we have defined it that way. What you are missing is that that "sub-middle class" is also getting richer. No, not as fast as the top 5%, but they are still getting richer. What we define as "poor" in the US, people would kill or die for in much of the rest of the world. People risk death every day(Cubans) for the opportunity to live "poor" by American standards. In the US, "poor" means only one tv, 3 people using one bathroom, and a slightly leaky roof. For a high percentage of Chinese (I'm not sure how many - 20%? 50%?), "poor" means never having seen a tv, used a bathroom with plumbing, nor lived in a structure with a fixed roof. On that I'll agree. 15. Jul 29, 2004 ### amp You will find that Njorl was probably being a bit generous with that 30% figure. It is likely with the tax shelters and loopholes the ultra wealthy pay less than 30%. A lot of very rich multinational corporations pay less than 10%. Its a wonder that the so-called right that harps on Christian values would ignore the words of the one they call their Savior for he said "if you would be great (meaning receive the approval of God) then minister to your brother(sister) who is in need " Have a care for the orphaned, have compassion for the homeless, uplift the destitute those are the kinds of actions and behaviors that will result in a better America for everyone. It doesn't mean a wealthy person must give away all their worldly goods, just spread some of it around to relive the misery. Sure some of you will say - these afflicted people need to get off their behinds and work for what they can get. A lot do but its like being on a treadmill for them they expend a lot of effort and don't seem to get ahead. Still others are unable because of various complications in their lives and then others don't have the skills, the literacy, or the education to get or sustain employment. Kerry's wife, Thersa Hinz-Kerry gives away millions but she hasn't gone broke and she would more than likely receive the love back if trouble came her way. I think Kerry will put the enviornment first, I think he will shrink the deficit and give us another surplus, I think he will manage to give us universal health care, I think he will reform our educational system thus giving all children a good chance to realize the promise of opportunity America offers. And I know he will pull in our (Bush)estranged allies to help us with the work we must accomplish in the middle-east (I'm including Iraq, Isreal, Palistine and Afganistan) 16. Jul 29, 2004 ### Robert Zaleski What do you think the hourly minimum wage should be? 17. Jul 29, 2004 ### amp at least ten per hour. 18. Jul 29, 2004 ### JohnDubYa Why not$50/hour? This way everyone will be rich.

19. Jul 29, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
There's a living wage requirement in place in many parts of California where certain jobs created by companies on government contracts are required to pay at least \$12/hr (I think that's the rate). It's nearly impossible to get these jobs. I don't even want to imagine how difficult it would be to find a job if every job paid that much. Haven't you people taken Econ 101? Why do you think illegal workers are never unemployed?

20. Jul 29, 2004

### JohnDubYa

And who would want to start a new business?

I'm going to invest in self-checkout machines.