What Exactly Is Kerry's Platform?
 

For months now I have listened to Bush bashing, some of it warranted, some of it not. But I have yet to hear exactly what it is that Kerry would do differently if he got elected president. So Kerry supporters, please tell me what Kerry is going to do if he is elected president. Just how will he handle the problems in the middle east. What is he going to do regarding taxes, lower? Higher? How about social security? Health insurance?

I really want to know where he stands on these issues.

--edit: removed Kerry Bashing comment

There have been a lot of commercials here lately where he states at the end that he 'approved this message'. Everything I've seen has been about providing healthcare so far.

"So Kerry supporters, please tell me what Kerry is going to do if he is elected president. Just how will he handle the problems in the middle east. What is he going to do regarding taxes, lower? Higher? How about social security? Health insurance?"


To be fair he has answered some of these.

Taxes - raised on anwone who makes over $200k. You know the guys that employ people. Also reinstate the marriage penalty and death tax.

Social security - See above,

Health insurance - Cradle to grave universal health care for everyone. Has not said how he would pay for it or what exact form it would take, just that he is for it:)

Re: What Exactly Is Kerry's Platform?
 

The 4'x4'x1' plywood box he's standing on.

I would request the Kerry bashers try to hold off on the bashing in this thread.

will do:)

Very good question. It seems to me that the Republican party has in past years, probably couple of decades at least, kicked the Democratic party's butt up one side of this nation and down the other when it comes to marketing its policies. Now, being a liberal thinker myself I would LOVE to see my party take the battle back to the other guys. I'd like very much for Kerry or somebody to outline what our thinking it, and why. Support that with some evidence, historial, statistical, whatever. There are a great many people who are liberal thinkers. We think we understand what can make an economy strong, and we have got some fairly good econometric data showing somewhat conclusively that the economic policies of democratic administrations have resulted in the periods of good economic health, and also showing the Republicans' policies, led by tax cuts for investors and businesses, is convenient for those entities but not for the nation's overall financial and economic health.

I would expect that a successful or at least compelling platform can be built around stuff like health care, social security and other specific issues. Crises, is more like it. But this thread is indeed interesting because I have been frustrated for years that the Democratic party has allowed the Republican party to kick its ass in this area, and it is particularly irksome to me how the Republicans have stolen our thunder. Buzzwords like "family" and "freedom" are like cardboard faces placed on the ugly monsters of comporate welfare and intrusion into people's private lives. Heck, the conservatives want to regulate people and their private lives (abortion, gay marriage, patriot act) and reduce regulation on business. How'd they steal the "family" and "freedom" thunder?

his lack of a platform and coming out with real answers for the issues is worrisome. it was said above though, the current administration has soiled the nest beyond repair and i think people just want a change. at this point we have seen bush's act and its gotten old. if kerry wins it will not be because he went out and won it, but because of where the country is right now.

I'd rather give Americans something to go toward, than have them running away form something. I think the Democratic Party has been missing a tremendous opportunity. And I'm not suggesting a smear campaign, but right now the weaknesses of the Republican platform are strikingly obvious and the nation is ripe for a head-to-head debate of those failed policies. And public sentiment is receptive.

Why, if only I were Emperor. BTW, thanks to those who are showing restraint here. If the anti-Kerry crowd remains respectful and objective, we could have a good discussion for a change. Go ahead and criticize, just be straightforward about it. And I do appreciate cartoons for amusement, but please put some substance in your posts. Besides respectful, I'd like to see a healthy and vigorous debate here. C'mon, we can do it!

Now that's what I'm talking about!!

Its rumord that he is going to add 10 million jobs, get every american the same healthcare that congress has, give un-employed single mothers a greater tax "credit" for day care. (if they are not working they are not paying taxes how can they get a credit? if they are not working why do they need more day care) This my frineds is his platform, promise anything he wants to. It wont matter if he cant deliver it becuase he is not Bush, that's all that matters to some. Facts on how impossible this is get lost in the hate for Bush. Kerry can sell some of these people a terd berger and they will eat it and smile becusae he is not Bush. Got any koolaid?

k911sc: "his lack of a platform and coming out with real answers for the issues is worrisome."

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues

Form the John Kerry Website
"George W. Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for special interests over our economic future"

I got a tax cut, I am not wealthy. Any of you non wealthy peeps get a tax cut too?

Yeah, that couple of hundred goes a long way when gas is $2.65, and the cost of EVERYTHING else has gone up as well. If you live in CA. or Wash. the FERC is thumbing it's nose at you in the name of ill gotten ENRON billions. But hey, if Joe Six-Pack can become Joe Twelve-Pack for a week or so, who am I to complain? Our kids are still young, they can afford it. :rolleyes:

What do you think the point of a tax cut is? It is to stimulate consumer spending. Do you think giving a guy who makes 200k a year a $200 tax cut will stimulate his spending? How about a guy that only pays $800 a year in taxes? As a percentage he will spend more that year. I am not even getting into issues of fairness here, simple economics my friend. The middle class and poor (me) pay so little in taxes (federal level) that the tax cuts we got were huge as a percentage of our previous rates. Heck some of us were totally removed from the role! What more do you want? Turn the IRS into a wealth redistribution tool(psst it already is EITC). If you want people to spend more, let them keep more. You cant let people keep what they didn't pay. Simple and it works.

I guarn-on-tee I would trade tax cuts with Bush or Cheney--and we're a 2 income family.

I would hope so Yank, they pay more than you make.

To be fair, this country is in the middle of a very messy international situation. For any opponent of the administration to come out too strongly at this point about the perceived weaknesses of those at the helm could have the perceived effect of undermining any efforts at stabilization and backfire.

Whether the Dems or the Reps were at the helm, the situation would be the same. So, the opposition has to tread carefully re: major criticism at this juncture.

Also, the Convention has yet to officially nominate Kerry. Once that is done, and the candidates are clearly defined, I am certain that the rhetoric on the Democratic side will become more defined itself.

I also expect more personal attacks from the administration, moreso than from the opposition. That seems to be the pattern so far. From an independent's point of view, the current "ins" have little to run on, given the agreed upon fact that Presidents have little effect on the economy, but take credit for it, and the current attitude of most of the world, right or wrong, toward our efforts at providing security.

I would guess that, other than domestic issues which have to be addressed, one focus will be on the perceived inability of the administration to successfully use diplomacy in dealing with the rest of the world. Note I said perceived.

As far as the economy, one must ask what can be done to improve health care and the need for meaningful jobs. To the average citizen, these are paramount. Many people do not realize that, for a retired couple, if the retiree dies, medical coverage for the surviving spouse often ends, leaving the individual without at that time in their lives when they may need it the most. And, Medicare just doesn't cover much of the costs. As far as jobs, those fortunate enough to have a good paying job in many industries are constantly looking over their shoulders, fearing the worst. And, those in small businesses depend on the disposable income of others in order to continue in business. The so-called "top 1%" does NOT include small business owners as stated by some. Most of that group are coupon clippers, taxed at the new low rate for monies invested rather than earned. The small business person is currently taxed rather highly.

On a personal note, although in favor of removing Saddam and keeping the promise to the Iraquis by GHWB, I do think that a little more time could have been used to convince others of the need for our actions. But, since we are there, it must be seen through to its logical conclusion, no matter what that may ultimately be. GHWB in his book plainly pointed out the results of invasion that, as far as Iraq, "We would own it", with all the inherited problems.

My remaining problem as to my vote in November is whether some one else should be given a chance or whether we, as a nation, should force GWB to finish what he started and take responsibility for the results.

Len:

So many questions!

I am not myself this year because my anger of Bush has me blinded and in the anybody but Bush column. The Commie-bastard Corvair-killer Nader is not even worthy of consideration.

When "my party" gets back to what is "Right" I'll be voting right again.

No doubt Bush/Cheney paid in a lot more in taxes than I made. The big difference is I made mine the old fashion honest way without the help of inside political deals, Saudi oil buddies, former President Daddies, etc, etc, etc.

I think my anger has me in tunnel vision mode, but it wouldn't bother me one ****ing minute to pull the Kerry lever this year. And I'm doing all I can with my die-hard Rep friends to do the same. So far, for vets and police buddies, it's not been a hard sale.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy. What the **** does a wealthy guy do with more money??? He invests it probably in oil stock or Haliburton stock. Hell--he's already blowing his walking-around-money on a couple of cases of Scotch, boob job for his 3rd trophy wife, tax-rightoff of a new Hummer and other crazy ****.

The low and middle class would spend a few hundred bucks on a new TV or couch or something that would help the consumer marketplace. I'm not a ****ing communist or Lenists or anything. It just seems to me to be common ****ing sense. Must of us can't even imagine how that top upper-****ing-crust lives.

If USA keeps heading the way it's going with a shrinking middle class and growing at the top and bottom of the income levels--the poor guys from the inner city will be dropping a French Revolution on our heads that would make the Iffel Tower spin.

found this while surfing (while at work :D :D :D )

Tax The Rich!
Democratic Tax the Rich System

Democrats exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it
is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we
hope the following will help. "Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In
Economics" by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor
of Economics; 536 Brooks Hall, University of Georgia. This is how
the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that
every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still
wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat
for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33 But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant,
the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved
a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get
$10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't
get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the
nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors,
is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack
them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table
anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

Thanks David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Economics, U
of Georgia

I all due respect to the Professor (I also have an advanced degree in Economics....Big Deal), his argument is sheer propaganda and any true financial person would dismiss it out of hand. I would not even dignify it by tearing it apart; it falls of its own weight.

What the argument does not take into account is the net spendable portion of each diner. Plain and simple.

Is it really too much to ask to ask the bashers/flamers to withhold comment in ONE thread? It's not like you don't have 20 other threads to participate in. THIS THREAD is to give the Kerry supporters an opportunity to at least educate ME as to what his plan for America is. So at least in THIS THREAD could you please corral your urge to comment unless it is on point?

Hey Kurt..

I thought I did......

Although not supporting either candidate openly, I tried to point out that there are reasons that some items are more or less "off the table" for a little while. Or should be.

ok.. sorry.. i will wait to see what kerry's supporters believe his plan to be.. i'm interested too... sorry again

To be honest Kurt I just get the e-mail that says someone responded to a post I made. When I click the link it takes me directly to that reply and I simply respond to it without seeing the title of the thread. Sorry I will pay special attention to this one, I normally don't look at the title.

Right now the President is trying to hang himself and Kerry is staying out of his way. Heck Kerry likely will win this election even if he does nothing except give voters a reasonable alternative to the status quo.

And BTW, Yankee has outlined very clearly why tax cuts for rich people do nothing to stimulate anybody's economy except the rich guy. It might make capital cheaper because it makes it more abundant. But the tax cuts that really matter are the ones that allow a family to replace that sagging mattress in the kid's room.

Now you can ignore payroll taxes and give me some lame story about a meal paid for entirely by a rich guy but, as Moneyguy points out, if that was written by an actual economist, then there was a deliberate intent to deceive and the story's target audience is ignorant people. It's a suckers' story.

And BTW, Moneyguy, my hat's off to anyone who has earned a degree, particularly an advanced degree, in economics. That can be tough stuff and mental calisthenics are mandatory in that field of study.

Yeah..got one in mechanical engineering too...

That and a buck just might get me a cup of coffee.....

But, I would do it all over again....

The combo did allow me to semi-retire with some dignity.

It was interesting, though. Got the engineering degree, went into aerospace, got dumped out of projects three times in two years, rehired, no security. Went back to night school, looked around, went to work for local govt and ran a pt real estate business. Got to the point where I would take a bit of security over the glory of rocket building...

How does this fit into the thread subject? Although a long time ago to many of you guys, it was during the same kind of international unrest and division as today. Employment differed from area to area, some areas were in good shape, my old home town of Rochester NY was beginning a long downward spiral with companies large and small either failing or moving away. Pfaudlers, Graflex, Stromberg Carlson, Wollensak, and the machine shops/small business that supplied them. I see it again, and it depends on where you are located and what you are involved in whether or not you see the economy as growing, stagnant, or even in decline. Most of us tend to be regional in our thinking.

In order to survive, I had to relocate.

Additionally, the current economic news is not good for future planning. Personal savings/investment has fallen to 2.2%, the lowest I can ever remember, and personal debt is at or near an all time high. Many folks figure, with interest rates still low, it is a good time to hock the family jewels, so things are bought on time. Many work from payday to payday, hoping that nuthin bad happens.


Some interesting definitions:

Recession: When your neighbor is out of work

Depression: When you are out of work

Tech:

This is from the Kerry website.



Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry’s priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.

The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

John Kerry has a plan to secure America’s economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare. He isn’t afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.

this is his "plan". I need help understanding how rolling back the tax cuts, taking more from the business is going to create 10 Million jobs. That is the extent of his plan posted on his website. Am I missing somthing?

Positively, definitively, no questioning, without-a-doubt mabye.

Honestly, I think that in recent years our political "system" has degenerated well-beyond issue-based platforms or any other such objective sensibilities.

From what I can tell, as a relatively "non-political" outsider, is that most folks seem to vote the party-line -- as ingrained by their environment and social circumstances (i.e., family and peer influence).

I would absolutely LOVE to have a race -- someday -- where it were a really tough choice between the candidates, and not because they are both undesirable and disconnected, barely-qualified, ass-kissing bureaucrats, but rather because they were both (or ALL in the ideal case) qualified, enlightened, compassionate and truly representative candidates.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. I doesn't get any more simple than that. You don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax cut. Those people who pay taxes are the ones who drive the economy. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and this is precisely what penalizing the rich and aiding and abetting the poor does, it destroys.

This is the most basic of economic theories...Tax cuts stimulate the economy...JF Kennedy agreed (it worked), Ronald Reagan agreed (it worked), and GW Bush agree (it is working).

There is one reason and one reason only Democrats don't like tax-cuts, because it takes money out of big-brother's hands. This means less power and more personal freedom. This freedom is precisely what Democrats don't want the people to have. They want dependent subjects and an all powerful nanny-state.

Dude, really, you gotta put down the crack pipe...I think opinions are like yanks, everyone has one...so I will found my spew with facts.

From the Washington Post (liberal) article, written by John Weicher, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank (howz that for creds?)...He writes, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation."

Then there is John "golddigger" Kerry (either a war criminal or a liar)

John Weicher could be wrong, but most of the wealthy I know earned it themselves.

Hey Tech, Mul's over here and he's saying tax cuts stimulate the economy. And to prove his point he asserts that wealthy people commonly built their own wealth as opposed to inheriting it. I know the first point, aobut tax cuts stimulating the economy, is horse**** and I fail to see how the second point relates to it.

Anyway, I know he keeps you busy disputing his assertions with fact, where his assertions are disjointed and unsubstantiated, but please keep it up. The neocons seem to be a little punch-drunk lately, so perhaps a few well-placed blows will have you standing alone in the ring.

"Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues - but the greater danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective. Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption as well as investment. After-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry.

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment."

Seems John Fitzgerald Kennedy disagreed with you and tech, Supe.

Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy?...Then what does?...Inefficient bureaucracy and corrupt unions?

Come on dude, smell the coffee...Bush inherited the byproduct of increased taxation (the Clinton recession). Bush cuts taxes ACROSS THE BOARD...The libeRATs tried desperately to stop him because they wanted the economy to fail. The economy would be doing even better if the Democrats didn't cut the tax-breaks.

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" -- Jesus Christ

It is better business for the liberals to keep people wanting another fish and coming to them to get it. It serves them not for people to be self-sufficient.

What Bush did was to cut taxes for rich people and corporations. Rich people consumed the same five years ago as they will this year. Tax cuts do not suddenly make a new car affordable for them. What it does is give them more investment income. So, corporations have more working capital, and investors have more money to throw at corporations. This does essentially the opposite of creating jobs. Heck, those corporation may come into a position to achieve their ultimate fantasy....mechanization. Robotics. This would eliminate the need for those messy, expensive, demanding workers.

I'd agree that the definition of a strong economy is one that places more money into the hands of the consumers. Consumers. Not investors. Your hero's decisions are moving our economy in the wrong direction. The average middle-income taxpayers, the ones who are paying the most taxes (all taxes, not just income tax) as a percent of earned income, has his share of the national debt increase created for us by Little Bush. His share of that debt is probably thirty times the tax cut you think he got.

So, time to post a cartoon, or look up a new word in your thesaurus (that's not a type of dinosauer) to use as an insult.

Very very clever remark about the Dems wanting the economy to fail. Brilliant. Makes me take back all I've said about you. Anybody that is so insightful as to take the position that half our nation wants to destroy America, well, I'm just going to believe everything you say from here on out.

Hey Tech. What's the relationship between Reaganomics and Economics? I mean, when the Wealth party gets into the Oval Office under a promise to cut rich peoples' taxes, what happens? Any graphs? I'm sure Mul is right to conclude that this makes for a vibrant economy, but could we just double-check?

Geeez, tax cuts have come around again. I don't really want to scuzz up a thread about Kerry's policies (and he needs to get out there and explain them better), but the short version.... IMHO, of course:

1) The US has a (big) deficit
2) What little growth there has probably primarily been led by credit based consumer spending (in particular, the semi-fictitious "I'm rich because my house is worth more" phenomenon)
3) Tax cuts reduce federal income
4) No credible economic source will agree that the tax cut money will be spent in a way which increases aggregate real federal income
5) So your deficit is going to get bigger (although there might well be higher GDP growth) - you are buying growth with debt, to be funded by future tax payers

I don't think Jesus Christ said this . . .

I stand corrected...first time ever:D

Gee, I think the first thing he should promise to do is to start telling the truth on his website.

Isn't his platform something about getting us out of Vietnam?

Kinda beats down your credibility, doesn't it? I mean, if you can make up random quotes and claim that JC said them, what else have you totally manufactured? Not that I disagree with your fundamental premise (that Kerry is probably not a good choice for this country), but your means are absolutely abysmal.

Dan