[+Donny]

He has said more than once that he will repeal a tax reduction Bush gave to the wealthy.

I don't know that his overall budget will be higher or lower than Bush's. Speaking merely from experience, the deomcrats (for the past 30 years at least) have had better balanced budgets than the republicans.

There are three ways to fund a program: Cut other spending, raise taxes, raise taxible commerce (the economy), or perform deficit spending.

Kerry was with the group that first pushed for balanced budget laws. Kerry was in the senate that finally passed a balanced budget.

And the only way he will have a balanced budget, it seems, will be by raising taxes.

One supposes that is because we already know what Bush will do. Invade countries, stomp civil liberties, loose jobs, and create a record-setting dificit.

He is not losing jobs right now. And the deficit is already there. The question revolves around which candidate will handle it better.

Because it's not neccessairily right.

Bush lowered taxes... as he said in his speech, an unwed mother of 2 is getting $1000 back from her taxes... unfortunately, because of his mishadling of jobs, she's making $13,000 less than she did before him, and her kids likely now lack healthcare.

"mishandling of jobs"? It's Bush's responsibility to make sure she has a job, and a higher paying one at that? No.
Furthermore, as he has stated, he wants medical insurance privatized, not like Kerry's socialization strategy.

One could as easly say, "I fail to see why doing several things right (gaining jobs, raising mean incomes, ensuring domestic security, removing a back-door draft, growing the economy) is inferior to doing nothing right (the biggest spending increase since WWII, pushing constitutional and civil-liberty-violating law, invading soverign nations, alienating long-standing allies, loosing jobs for the first time since the great depressions, lying to the american people, etc).

I spoke of fact. Bush lowered taxes and raised government spending, the former good, the latter bad. Kerry wants to raise both, both of which are bad. Your comparison is circular, as it assumes Kerry will succeed and Bush fail, which is exactly what we are debating.

[+Donny]

I don't particularly have a problem with the idea of "spread[ing] democracy" as a foreign policy; I just think war not necessarily the best way to go about creating a democracy. A free, but fair, trade policy; exercising global leadership through international servanthood*; assisting democratic movements in totalitarian states, even when doing so hurts short-term US interests (since long-term interests always lie with democratic development). These are a few of the ways we ought to be spreading democracy. Unfortunately, whilst Kerry seems to be more in-tune with that general outline of what I think constitutes sound foreign policy, I think his domestic policies are generally trash. What am I to do??




*I'm copyrighting "Exercising Global Leadership Through International Serventhood."

Vote for Nader.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Vote for Nader.

Surprisingly, Nader tends to be a kind of left-wing communitarian in a lot of ways; wants to end pornography and corporate violence on TV, allow communities to take back control of their free enterprise, punish corporate crime, etc. Too much of his stuff is too far to the left for me. Who else is left, besides the Archbishop of the Whack-Job Parties (Peroutka)?

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Surprisingly, Nader tends to be a kind of left-wing communitarian in a lot of ways; wants to end pornography and corporate violence on TV, allow communities to take back control of their free enterprise, punish corporate crime, etc. Too much of his stuff is too far to the left for me. Who else is left, besides the Archbishop of the Whack-Job Parties (Peroutka)?

My dad is threatening to write in for Roy Moore (*edited from humorous typo of "Joy Moore"*). Maybe you should be a true american and write in George Washington.

That's the problem with third parties; they are all overzealous. You have the CP and Peroutka, who want everything "perfect" immediately, you have the communists and Nader, who, well, speak for themselves, and you have the libertarians, who seem to be free-market guys with no morals. Voting apparently is an action of compromise. I will vote for Bush because he is the only Christian who isn't extremist and who won't screw up the country totally. Sure, he will mess things up, but I fail to see anyone who won't mess them up worse.

Of course, ultimately, the abortion issue is probably the highest priority, and Bush, being the only realistic candidate that takes a stand against some abortion, will definitely get my vote for that.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

My dad is threatening to write in for Roy Moore (*edited from humorous typo of "Joy Moore"*). Maybe you should be a true american and write in George Washington.

In Memphis, there's a guy named "Prince Mongo of Venus." He's a rich eccentric, and he keeps getting more and more write-in votes every cycle. It is quite possible that, in the future, he will be formally styled, "Mongo, Prince of Venus and Mayor of Memphis." Be careful who you write-in. After all, San Fransico did have Emperor Norton at one point.

You have the CP and Peroutka, who want everything "perfect" immediately,

I am utterly convinced that the ascendcy of King Whack-Job to the Presidency would trigger a second Civil War. No doubt in my mind.

you have the communists and Nader, who, well, speak for themselves,

You have no clue how tempted I am to vote for the Communists. Just for ****s and giggles.

and you have the libertarians, who seem to be free-market guys with no morals.

Finally! Someone else who gets the moral degeneracy of the LP. And using "moral degeneracy" means a lot when coming from an quasi-Liberal Episcopalian.

Voting apparently is an action of compromise. I will vote for Bush because he is the only Christian who isn't extremist and who won't screw up the country totally. Sure, he will mess things up, but I fail to see anyone who won't mess them up worse.

A clear sign of political system in crisis.

[JerryLove]

And the only way he will have a balanced budget, it seems, will be by raising taxes.

Kerry's outlined several steps to fund the inititives. Removing the tax refund on the wealthyist 1%, removing the off-shore loophole that costs us an extimated $87 billion per year in uncollected taxes, reducing our debt load for the Iraq war, etc.

Though again, I'd gladly loose my 2% tax break to get the 15% or so in raises I've lost, and to not have taken the 33% increase in healtchare, and insurance, and tuition, that I've seen under Bush.

[quote]He is not losing jobs right now. And the deficit is already there. The question revolves around which candidate will handle it better.[/qoute] From the time he took office to now, he's lost a net of over a million jobs. As to what will be done with the debt, the depends on the foresight and frugality of the president. What is Bush's? He created the debt in the first place after inhereting the largest surplus in US history.

"mishandling of jobs"? It's Bush's responsibility to make sure she has a job, and a higher paying one at that?

It's not "she", it's "all of us". The jobs which have finally started appearing (though not in nearly sufficient numbers to recoup those lost) are appearing an average of $13,000 lower than the ones lost.

You may argue that the economy, and jobs are not the president's job... well neither then is legislation (abortion), nor most anything else.

No.
Furthermore, as he has stated, he wants medical insurance privatized, not like Kerry's socialization strategy.

Under Bush the cost of health insurance has gone up over 30%. Under Bush the number of insured Americans has diminished considerably. Bush has failed healthcare, plain and simple. What Bush want's or doesn't want is irrellevent. He has had 4 years and has left us in a worse position than he found us.

I spoke of fact. Bush lowered taxes and raised government spending, the former good, the latter bad.

Why is the former good? You've never supported that claim at all.

If the next congress cut taxation to zero percent, bankrupting the country and destroying the economy would that be good as well? The world is not as black-and-white as you like to think it is Donny.

Kerry wants to raise both, both of which are bad. Your comparison is circular, as it assumes Kerry will succeed and Bush fail, which is exactly what we are debating.

Bush has failed. That's simply reality.

Kerry is in a party with a long history of being accused of wanting big government, and a long history of fiscal responsability.

Bush is in a part with a long history of promising small government and then enlarging the government heavliy.

Kerry personally has a history of controlling spending, Bush personally has a history of spending out of control. Kerry is endorsed by the president that balanced the budget, Bush is endorsed by the one that got us in a war in Iraq.

The purpose of government is to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility". To do so without taking a penny (while impossible) would be ideal. We levy and pay taxes for the purpose of accomplishing those goals. It is nieve and innane to call either promoting a goal, or lowering a tax "good" or "bad" without looking at the net efffect.

Under Bush Americans have less money. It's that simple. I don't give a rat's behind wheather I lost the money to tax hikes or inflation or bad economics, I still lost it. Kerry promises more. I don't care wheather that comes through tax reductions, a better economy, or a reduction in my expendatures.

Well managed healthcare will lower my healtcare costs... let me repeat that... it will *save* me money. Wheather the government can well-manage catosrophic care? Well, they manage it right now for the millitary, and social security, and government employees, and those on welfare.

The fact is that the government is involved in healthcare. The question is wheather extending this involvement is good or bad. On the down-side it is an expense that will have to be paid, and Kerry believes he can pay it without raising taxes on me. On the upside it will make healtcare available to my girlfriend (who cannot afford it at present), and makeit possible for me to self-insure (I cannot now because no one will cover my catastrophic health-coverage), and (hopefully) lower prices.

I save money and have more secure health coverage... yea, what a raw deal that would be.

[jfahler03]

Of course, ultimately, the abortion issue is probably the highest priority, and Bush, being the only realistic candidate that takes a stand against some abortion, will definitely get my vote for that.

I understand that, and as a Christian struggle with that as well. However, remember that:
Bush's war has been killing Iraqi citizens (human beings too)
Bush's education plan has been laying off teachers and providing unseen "money" for the school districts (what was No Child Left Behind? $78 B? If it were that much and if it were actually circulated, maybe Cleveland School District wouldn't have had to cut their bus program... thats a lot of money)
Bush's economic "plan" has been laying off jobs
Bush's healthcare "plan" has left people without health insurance

So honestly... I doubt abortion is the key issue here. If we want to say that Kerry isn't "Christian" in his politics regarding how he is voting for the women's "right to choose", maybe we're overlooking Bush regarding for example his voting record on stem cell research (sounds like he's going in circles there)... How can I vote for a president who not only goes in circles with the economy, but with abortion?


On the economy: We need more taxes to fund the government. Period. JerryLove is exactly right when he says taht the tax breaks havent helped us much, because the sorry state of the economy overshadows that. If a president doesn't have any effect on the economy, maybe the Bush-Clinton-Bush patterns and effects on the economy are wrong (not)? People say that taxing the rich more is "unConstitutional"...well maybe it is, but historically its what we've NEEDED to have a decent economy (other than a major world war, which can be said more for Europe, which doesn't differentiate between class... a German machine gun does not care if you are upper or lower class).

Anyway, what I believe was realized espeically at the turn of the 20th century, and ever since the Federalist / Republican debates of the late 18th century was that this "republican dream" does not work because of human nature. Therefore, the system must be changed in order to accomidate for this "human nature"

Sorry if this doesnt make sense or is too basic... I'm just a college sophomore trying to think

-Josh

[JerryLove]

Of course, ultimately, the abortion issue is probably the highest priority, and Bush, being the only realistic candidate that takes a stand against some abortion, will definitely get my vote for that.

But stands cannot be as important as results. This should not be a popularity poll, but the hiring of the person who will do the best Job.

Bush has not made abortion illegal. Bush has not put nearly the effort into abortion he put into marraige or invading people. Bush can say whatever he likes but his actions speak louder.

Here's something to chew on. Someone more moderate on abortion may have more success lowering it.

Think about it. You come in and say "no abortions for anyone ever"... the Christians cheer, the laws never get passed, and nothing changes.

You come in and say "let's curb abortions", "let's curtail non-medical late-term abortions", "let's offer better healtcare (which included BC)"... and the number of aborted fetuses goes down.

So, someone completely with your cause who does nothing? Or someone partially with your cause that helps it. Who is the better president?

[+Donny]

You have no clue how tempted I am to vote for the Communists. Just for ****s and giggles.

Oh, I have a clue. I was the one threatening to vote for Nader. I would actually have to write him in, because I heard that he isn't making the ballot in Texas.

Finally! Someone else who gets the moral degeneracy of the LP. And using "moral degeneracy" means a lot when coming from an quasi-Liberal Episcopalian.

Wow, I am astounded. That is the first time I ever saw an Anglican call anyone "morally degenerate". You are right, that does mean a lot. Apparently you haven't gotten to the point where you will allow prostitutes into the ministry. Women. Homosexuals. But not prostitutes.

A clear sign of political system in crisis.

No, I think the fact that Kerry is running pretty successfully is a sure sign of crisis. The fact that Hilary Clinton scares me and is possibly a threat is a sure sign of crisis.

[+Donny]

Kerry's outlined several steps to fund the inititives. Removing the tax refund on the wealthyist 1%, removing the off-shore loophole that costs us an extimated $87 billion per year in uncollected taxes, reducing our debt load for the Iraq war, etc.

I fail to see how taxing the wealthiest 1% will remove the deficit, unless you tax the crap out of them. And what of the resulting lost jobs from that?
And what about the debt load in Iraq? With what money will he do that? Kerry is saying a lot, but, again, how will he pay for it?

Though again, I'd gladly loose my 2% tax break to get the 15% or so in raises I've lost, and to not have taken the 33% increase in healtchare, and insurance, and tuition, that I've seen under Bush.

I would love to see how a 2% raise in taxes (or, rather, a lose of your 2% tax break) somehow gives you a raise.

From the time he took office to now, he's lost a net of over a million jobs.

And I fail to see how this is relevant to what I just said.

As to what will be done with the debt, the depends on the foresight and frugality of the president. What is Bush's? He created the debt in the first place after inhereting the largest surplus in US history.

You repeated what I just said and ignored my question. Who will handle the debt better, now that it is here? Who has the better plan to handle the deficit? Saying, "Bush did it" isn't answering the question.

It's not "she", it's "all of us". The jobs which have finally started appearing (though not in nearly sufficient numbers to recoup those lost) are appearing an average of $13,000 lower than the ones lost.

Okay, and?

You may argue that the economy, and jobs are not the president's job... well neither then is legislation (abortion), nor most anything else.

He is supposed to head the execution of said laws, though. The comparison is illegitimate.

Under Bush the cost of health insurance has gone up over 30%. Under Bush the number of insured Americans has diminished considerably. Bush has failed healthcare, plain and simple. What Bush want's or doesn't want is irrellevent. He has had 4 years and has left us in a worse position than he found us.

I fail to see how it is the government's job to provide healthcare.

Why is the former good? You've never supported that claim at all.

Because the government is too big.

If the next congress cut taxation to zero percent, bankrupting the country and destroying the economy would that be good as well? The world is not as black-and-white as you like to think it is Donny.

Strawman, and I think you know it.

Bush has failed. That's simply reality.

And I didn't deny it. The question lies in the future, not the past.

Kerry is in a party with a long history of being accused of wanting big government, and a long history of fiscal responsability.

Bush is in a part with a long history of promising small government and then enlarging the government heavliy.

Kerry personally has a history of controlling spending, Bush personally has a history of spending out of control. Kerry is endorsed by the president that balanced the budget, Bush is endorsed by the one that got us in a war in Iraq.

The purpose of government is to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility". To do so without taking a penny (while impossible) would be ideal. We levy and pay taxes for the purpose of accomplishing those goals. It is nieve and innane to call either promoting a goal, or lowering a tax "good" or "bad" without looking at the net efffect.

Under Bush Americans have less money. It's that simple. I don't give a rat's behind wheather I lost the money to tax hikes or inflation or bad economics, I still lost it. Kerry promises more. I don't care wheather that comes through tax reductions, a better economy, or a reduction in my expendatures.

You just made a host of generalized statements that really said nothing. I don't care what Kerry claims to wants to do. I want to know how.

Well managed healthcare will lower my healtcare costs... let me repeat that... it will *save* me money. Wheather the government can well-manage catosrophic care? Well, they manage it right now for the millitary, and social security, and government employees, and those on welfare.

The fact is that the government is involved in healthcare. The question is wheather extending this involvement is good or bad. On the down-side it is an expense that will have to be paid, and Kerry believes he can pay it without raising taxes on me. On the upside it will make healtcare available to my girlfriend (who cannot afford it at present), and makeit possible for me to self-insure (I cannot now because no one will cover my catastrophic health-coverage), and (hopefully) lower prices.

I save money and have more secure health coverage... yea, what a raw deal that would be.

Again, it is not the government's job. It's sad to see that you trust the government in socializing medicine over the free market, but alright, that's up to you.

[+Donny]

But stands cannot be as important as results. This should not be a popularity poll, but the hiring of the person who will do the best Job.

Bush has not made abortion illegal. Bush has not put nearly the effort into abortion he put into marraige or invading people. Bush can say whatever he likes but his actions speak louder.

Here's something to chew on. Someone more moderate on abortion may have more success lowering it.

Think about it. You come in and say "no abortions for anyone ever"... the Christians cheer, the laws never get passed, and nothing changes.

You come in and say "let's curb abortions", "let's curtail non-medical late-term abortions", "let's offer better healtcare (which included BC)"... and the number of aborted fetuses goes down.

So, someone completely with your cause who does nothing? Or someone partially with your cause that helps it. Who is the better president?

Except that Bush didn't say, "no abortions" and worked for the partial birth abortion ban. How is that not moderate, in terms of taking one step at a time? Peroutka is an example of a candidate who lacks moderation.

[Pennypacker11]

There is another way of looking at the abortion debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the Republican party in its rejection of abortion. Simply put, it is murder and should not be legal. I have a hard time voting for a candidate (Kerry) who would put this issue under personal morality and even worse, would vote against a bill banning partial birth abortion (i'm not sure how valid the 'health of the mother' excuse was). However, there are other issues to look at in the abortion debate.

Supreme Court:
First, Bush has clearly stated that he has no litmus test. Pro-Life is not a requirement for one of his justices. If you think that he is just saying this for political reasons and does in fact have a litmus test, then we have a lying president which would be another reason for apprehension.

Next, the supreme court right now is barely pro-choice in its rulings. Thus, the argument goes, if a couple are replaced in the next four years, then if bush is president the vote will swing to the pro-life side. However, there are a couple things people should keep in mind. 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans. 5 of the 9 have ended up with positions on abortions that were the opposite of what they thought going in. Finally, with the senate so evenly split, there is no chance for either Kerry or Bush to get a judge through that is diehard in either direction.

Lowering Abortion:
According to the CDC, In 1980, when Regan took office, there were 1.25 million abortions. In 1988, there were 1.35. In 1992, there were 1.43. During 12 years of pro-life Republican presidents which weakened the social services in the country there was a rise of 200,000 abortions per year. Under Clinton, a strong pro-choice president (who said that abortions should be legal but rare) the number dropped to around .85 million in 2000. That is a drop of 600,000 in four years. There are many factors that contribute to this, but a large one is the providing of strong social services so that women do not feel the need to have abortions.

Another example: Taking western europe, the USA, and Latin America, the latter has the strongest anti-abortion laws with the weakest social infrastructure. Western Europe is the opposite, with the strongest social services and in some countries virtually no restriction on abortion. The USA is in the middle. The number of abortions, from greatest to least, goes: 1) Latin America, 2) USA, 3) Western Europe.

I understand the ideological problem with voting for Kerry. As human beings (and as Christians) we should be working for an end to abortion. However, if we truly want this, simply working for a ban on abortion does not work (for example, only 22% of abortions occur in developed countries, and most of the other 78% are in countries that ban abortion). We must work for a ban to abortion but alongside this, we must work for a social infrastructure that will support mothers and their children. Statistics show that 12 years of Reagan and Bush did not build this infrastucture and thus abortions went up (and I believe statistics will show that George W did the same). If we remove services, simply put, abortions will go up.

In conclusion, I have realized that as Christians we must work for the end to abortion. I applaud when Christian groups boycott construction companies which work for Planned Parenthood. However, it is both possible and logical that a pro-life voter could in good conscience vote for Kerry. The question that is always asked is a good one: "Are you for or against the legalization of abortion." However, there is another question that should be asked which yields a different answer for Christians: "If I want less abortions in the next four years than the previous four years, who should I vote for?" The simply answer is Kerry.

[JerryLove]

I fail to see how taxing the wealthiest 1% will remove the deficit, unless you tax the crap out of them. And what of the resulting lost jobs from that?

It will garner revenue... did someone claim that was the only step to be done?

As to the resulting job loss, since the tax break has been instituted, we've lost over a million jobs. What makes you think repealing the tax break would cost any? Do you have any real support? Because the actual numbers say the opposite.

And what about the debt load in Iraq? With what money will he do that? Kerry is saying a lot, but, again, how will he pay for it?

Would have been nice if Bush thought of that before he went in.

The first rule of getting out of a hole is "stop digging". To begin with, I don't think Kerry will rush to invade more soverign nations. I don't have the same faith in Bush. Further, I think Kerry can own up to mistakes and change plans when he is wrong. Bush cannot. I think, therefore, Kerry has the best likelyhood of getting us out, saving us money, and getting us help. Bush has funded Haliburton well.

I would love to see how a 2% raise in taxes (or, rather, a lose of your 2% tax break) somehow gives you a raise.

You miss the point entirely. Bush has said, in speech and debate, about how he puts money in my pocket with his tax cut. The reality is that his economy has stopped me from getting raises, which I was getting before. With one hand he puts $1000 in my pocket, with the other he takes $8000 out, and with a third he raises many of my bills (a 30% jump in health-care costs is pretty signifigant to someone who gets 2 CT scans and a PET scan every year).

And I fail to see how this is relevant to what I just said.

Bush has failed the economy and the jobs. I'm sure I can find points in the history of the Soviet Union where the economy rose, but that doesn't a good economy make.

You repeated what I just said and ignored my question. Who will handle the debt better, now that it is here? Who has the better plan to handle the deficit? Saying, "Bush did it" isn't answering the question.

It is half the answer. The question is "how will he handle the budget". Bush will handle it by creating record deficit. I think Kerry will handle it better.

Kerry's party has handled it better than Bush's party.

Okay, and?

And therefore Bush's record on jobs is hte owrst in 70 years.

He is supposed to head the execution of said laws, though. The comparison is illegitimate.

No it's not. You are not talking about the enforcement of laws, you are talking about the *passing* of law... which is not the job of the exectuive branch.

I fail to see how it is the government's job to provide healthcare.

Then what do you care about the conomy, the deficit, or foreign policy? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And it's in the deleration of independance under "promote the general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility"

Because the government is too big.

Your opinion... and not related to the question of why "lower taxes = good, higher taxes = bad"

Strawman, and I think you know it.

No, a reducto ad absurdum You said "lowering taxes is good"... so I created a scenerio that fit that rule (taxes lowered to 0%) and pointed out that the results were, in point of fact, bad... establishing the rule as false.

And I didn't deny it. The question lies in the future, not the past.

So try the same experiment over and over and expect a different result? In four years Bush failed. You want to watch him fail another 4 years?

You are hungry. There are two items in front of you. You tried the first item but it was inedible. You havne't tried the second but you think it will be equally inedible, so you try the first over and over again?

You just made a host of generalized statements that really said nothing. I don't care what Kerry claims to wants to do. I want to know how.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf

Again, it is not the government's job. It's sad to see that you trust the government in socializing medicine over the free market, but alright, that's up to you.

According to whom? According to you, the economy is not the governments job, and neither is foreign policy. Since the laws have been enforced under all presidents, they are all eqaully good... now go worry about congress passing the "stoning of heritics" law and you will be all set. We can go back to a society of nothing but rich land-owners, and barely-surviving indentured servants.

[jfahler03]

I fail to see how taxing the wealthiest 1% will remove the deficit, unless you tax the crap out of them. And what of the resulting lost jobs from that?

1) look at the statistics regarding social class and wealth at http://www.socialclass.org. Those 1% have entirely too much of the wealth and CAN throw it away unlike the rest of us mere mortals.
2) resulting lost jobs? What of the lost jobs that happen when they get their way, and want to find a way to make MORE money? Bush is too idealistic to be president... he apparently thinks or wants people to think that he believes that big business will act with the best of social interest. Well, they wont, they'll act with the best in their own financial interest... whether that means moving textiles to a sweatshop in Pakistan or not. Basically, its human nature, what we as Christians call "sin", and what is best described by Upton Sinclair in his 1906 landmark The Jungle, as well as much of the political debate of the early 1900's. The fact is, we NEED social infastructure.

[+Donny]

This debate is getting circular and repetitive. I doubt anyone will change their mind this close to the election, so I'll just stop here.