Another Kerry thread: the speech
 

This is off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm missing a few things from Kerry's speech last night:

-halve the deficit in four years
-40,000 more military personnel
-middle class tax cut
-lower the military reserve's involvement in deployments (he called this the "backdoor draft")
-healthcare for everyone
-no changes to Medicare
-tax breaks for small businesses
-tax breaks for non-outsourcing (or maybe penalties for outsourcers, that wasn't clear).

Question1: How is this going to be paid for?

Question2: Is it fair to hold him to these promises?

I'll try to be civil if you do. :D

Edit - I can't believe I misspelled paid.

with "a plan" donncha know. (details of which are a secret. . even to Kerry. . .but it will all work out, because Kerry is a known master of plans . . . oh, wait. . that's not right.)

Re: Another Kerry thread: the speech
 

He also stated that he would roll back tax cuts on those making over $200k a year. I think that's how he plans on paying for part of it.

Re: Re: Another Kerry thread: the speech
 

Okay, that's a start. It looks like, in 2002, 14.1% of the US population made over $100,000 per year. So we raise taxes on them to make money for a cut to the middle class. If we define middle class as, say, $15,000 - 50,000 per year, that's 40% of the population.

Sounds good so far. We take from the 14%, give it to the 40%. Now what about that health care plan that's going to cover everyone?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads3/c1091215208.jpg

I haven't heard any numbers, so I know we're forced to be vague and make assumptions. It was a pretty good speech. Now how is he going to give all these things to the cheering throngs?

I just want to know: when he says all this stuff, it it firm? Are these promises, or suggestions? What's the plan? Surely there is an accountant on the campaign team who has worked out in advance how these items will be funded.

I saw about 20 seconds of it while channel surfing. Kerry looked unhealthy to me. Sweaty and clamy.

40,000 more military personnel? We're working like dogs to try and get rid of people! We're like 1800 people short of our goal (ie 1800 people high) in this region, and it's this Big Fat Hairy Deal. We're separating people (good sailors, even) for trivial stuff because we've got to meet the silly Goal End Strength. Now we're trying to plus up again?

Argh, make it stop ...

Dan

He's got Theresa's American Express!:D

I think a better plan would have been to transfer our existing troops from other bases (we have approx. 750 bases worldwide). Regulars should be more experienced and better trained than part time soldiers. Use the Reserves and National Guard to take the place of those transferred to middle east duty, then cycle other reserve groups into and out of that loop. Leave the fighting/logistics to the pros.

Do we need more military or do we better deploy the ones we now have?

Now that Kerry has offered a list, he'll have a chance to provide us with some details in the coming weeks before the election. There was only so much time to elucidate. He only had an hour to complete his speech before prime time TV schedules threatened to pre-empt his speech. I wonder what was on last night that was so important.

Sherwood

Re: Another Kerry thread: the speech
 

You forgot "I'm a war hero, I won 3 Purple Hearts"

Randy

Pretty big claims for a guy who's already told us he would spend 3 trillion (3,000,000,000,000) dollars.

Some of you guys are okay with this income redistribution. "Sounds good so far. We take from the 14%, give it to the 40%" I'm not in that 14% bracket, but that doesn't mean I want their money taken away to pay for some government program. The top 10% of tax payers in this country pay for over 62% of the federal income tax already. Cutting taxes has been proven to stimulate the economy. If you don't believe it, look up the actual statistics. The last 14 months have seen the higest period of growth in 20 years! That's an indisputable fact.

What's happened here is that President Bush took every issue possible away from the democrats. He let Ted Kennedy write the Education bill. He signed a prescription drug benefit. He created the Dept. of Homeland Security (which Joe Leiberman helped to push). He helped Faith-Based Charities with the CARE act. He's also the ONLY president to give funding to _stem cell research_, which the lefties are so fond of these days.

The dems picked him becuase he's a 'war hero'. Funny, he's a 'war hero' for a war they thought was 'unjust' and 'illegal'. He earned three purple hearts and some other medals, which he used to get out of his service after only 4 months. Then immediately upon returning to the US, he claims to have committed war atrocities, and that the soldiers around him committed the same crimes. So he becomes an anti-war activitist and throws these medals over the fence at the white house. Those are the medals he's so proud of now. Now this 'war hero' of a war they called 'unjust' and 'illegal' wants to be in charge of a situation that they'd like everyone to believe is another vietnam?

The facts show that this guy (based on his 19 year voting record in the senate, which nobody wants to recognize) is the NUMBER ONE most liberal man in the senate. He voted against every single weapons system that we are currently using to defeat terrorism. He votes to raise taxes at every opportunity. Looking strictly at the facts of his voting record, he's raised them over 350 times. You can read the detailed list of every vote Here: http://www.georgewbush.com/media/kerryhighertaxes.pdf

Do I even need to spend the time recounting his votes for and against the war on terror? His COMPLETE turn-around on position on WMD in iraq?

I challenge one person to make an argument that Kerry would be better for the war on Terror.

I thought that would stand out clearly as sarcasm...so if it didn't, I'll be clearer: That was sarcasm. I'm just trying to get some real discussion going in here by giving some data instead of rants. I don't know how Kerry plans to pay for all the things he says he wants, so that leads me to question whether he's serious, or that speech was just a speech - to be forgotten, just like the "I'm not a nation-builder" speech that W gave.

I'm sorry... I didn't catch that the first time. I think in a discussion about this kind of stuff it's easy to read so much that it becomes monotone and sarcasm doesn't really jump out... at least for me.
I haven't been in the off-topic area and don't know everyone yet... been hanging around those 944 guys too much, or maybe it's you 911 guys I just don't get yet :P

Yeah, all the oil leaks make us grouchy sometimes. :D

I think by closing a lot of the corporate tax loopholes, quite a bit of that could be made up. Where's good old Jerry Brown - flat tax, 15% for everyone and all corporations 25%. Bam. Done. Best idea I ever heard of.

damn straight, flat tax is definitely the way to go.

The reason it won't happen is that we have a lot of poor people who are out of any reasonable tax bracket, so going from 1% or 0% taxes to 15% is a humongous tax increase, meanwhile those of us paying 20-40% taxes would get a huge break. By shifting the tax base onto a minority, they have a majority of freeloaders whining about over-taxation on themselves, which doesn't exist. Then when a tax cut comes and only the people actually paying taxes get a cut they get all mad.

I guess if you make no money and pay no taxes, everyone who makes money and pays taxes would be considered 'the rich'. which would be why only 'the rich' get the tax cut, when compared to homeless or welfare recipients.

The so-called prescription benefit plan has so many drawbacks it may turn out to cost folks more.

For example, although most of you are not retired, please consider the fact that retirees are living on a more stringent budget. When the plan goes into full effect, those retirees with prescription riders on their retirement may lose them. Employers are considering dropping them since, after all, the Govt will be providing assistance. Where, riight or wrong, the retiree now has a $10 co-pay, and God forbid, has a very expensive but vital prescription, his or her cost for that prescription will skyrocket if the employer drops the co-pay.

And, the retiree will have no legal recourse. Sorry, Mom...buck up and eat cat food instead of tuna.....

There are those at the mercy of the system.

Medicare was never ever intended to be one's only source of income or health services. Those who are at the mercy of the system have not planned for the rest of their lives.

If it's planned right, and this can be done extremely conservatively by starting retirement early, you will retire with more income per month than you made working. I'm 19 and not a rich guy, but I've started my retirement already. Every $100 i put into the plan right now will be worth tens of thousands more than $100 i put in when I'm 40 or 50.