On his own Merit, who would vote for Kerry?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 27, 2004, 9:27 pm

Not based on who he is running against or the current world situation, but in what you know of Kerry. If you say you would vote for him, and cannot tell me specifically why then you may as well post to retards. Give me a REASON, a FACTUAL reason.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 27, 2004, 9:42 pm

No offense, but if it went solely off of merit you guys wouldn't elect anyone that's running.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 27, 2004, 9:46 pm

Kylere wrote:Not based on who he is running against or the current world situation, but in what you know of Kerry. If you say you would vote for him, and cannot tell me specifically why then you may as well post to retards. Give me a REASON, a FACTUAL reason.

I agree with Dregor on this subject. We have a sore lack of statesmen and an excessive number of politicians. Sadly, I believe that if someone like Adams or Madison were running today, they wouldn't even land a state senate seat.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 27, 2004, 9:53 pm

It's been the lesser of two evils in most democratic elections around the world for a long time. I know you enjoy the fantasy that the democratic process works as intended and your vote counts, but you do realise that's a fantasy right?

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 9:54 pm

I have to agree with Dregor on this.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 27, 2004, 10:04 pm

Also agree with Dregor..

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 27, 2004, 10:10 pm

without even regarding there is a lot more to like about kerry than there is about bush. when you look at the collosal failures of the bush admin there isn't even a comparison.

kerry = war hero, scholar and life long servant of the united states and its people.

bush = spoiled brat, draft dodging alcoholic and coke addict who ruined 3 businesses and has been arrested 3 times from everything from DUI to securities fraud, who recently found jesus. shit, he isn't presidential material, he's about the same level as an common ex-felon. the only difference is his daddy is a rich politician and not a garbage man or a teacher.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 27, 2004, 10:12 pm

/nod. In today's information society, we know too much about our leaders, actors, sports stars, etc.

It was nice, not even all that long ago, when you only heard the good things. You actually had people you could look up to. It's tough knowing for certain just how flawed we all are.

I would prefer neither Bush nor Kerry. Unfortunately we have to pick one of them.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 27, 2004, 10:16 pm

I vote for the environment, as all life depends on it's health. I consider all life on the planet to be important and I do not consider human beings to be more important than the rest of the life on the planet. The way we rape the lands with no respect is aweful. There used to be a natural balance to all things and we've dramaticaly upset that balance. If we want to continue to live on this world then we need to protect it. If that is extreme, then Im proud to be an environmental extremist. In the end, money, religion, army, etc are of no importance if we have no world to live on.

Though Kerry's plans are not on par with my hopes for environmental stability, they are in every way better than Bush's plans. If I thought a Green Party candidate could ever win, I would vote for them, but I try to be realistic about it.

As for factual information on his plans, I could copy/paste for hours, but rather than do that I'll provide a link that you probably won't read because you don't give a shit anyhow.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/

Highlights/summaries from this link:

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE:

John Kerry will make environmental justice a national priority. He will create Environmental Empowerment Zones to ensure that environmental justice is considered in decisions that affect these communities and, more importantly, to empower communities from the ground up for positive change. He will also create a national health tracking system for chronic diseases and environmental health hazards. And, John Kerry will reinvigorate action on environmental justice at the federal level.

ON CONSERVATION:

John Kerry will enter into a “Conservation Covenant” with the American people to tread lightly on the public lands and protect and restore our nation’s parks and other treasures for the benefit of future generations. As part of the covenant, John Kerry will implement the Endangered Species Act in a cooperative manner that extends the benefits of wildlife and habitat protection to public and private lands. He will put new teeth into requirements that private companies who lease public lands return the land to its original state. The Covenant will reinvest royalties obtained from extracting resources from public lands back into protecting our lands, and require that before remote public lands are opened up to new resource development, the federal government evaluate the long term economic and environmental costs associated with such actions.

ON CLEAN AIR:

As President, he will immediately reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks of our nation’s Clean Air laws, plug loopholes in the laws, and vigorously enforce them. He will take bold steps to protect the health of all Americans – particularly our most vulnerable seniors and children – by adopting an aggressive program to meet ozone and air quality standards, stop acid rain, and reduce mercury emissions. His plan also includes addressing global warming emissions through a combination of innovative programs that will drive technology change and create jobs.

US GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP:

John Kerry understands that some of our most serious environmental challenges – and opportunities – are taking place on an international stage and that they require American leadership in the international community. Unlike the Bush Administration, John Kerry will not abdicate this responsibility and opportunity. When John Kerry is president, the U.S. will reengage in the development of an international climate change strategy to address global warming, and identify workable responses that provide opportunities for American technology and know-how. And a Kerry Administration will meet new challenges associated with the global exploitation of marine resources and the global crisis of access to fresh water supplies.

.................................................................................................................
I understand that in the past, even when environmental issues seem to be important to a candidate, when they are in office, they don't always do what they said they would. Clinton made a lot of environmental promises that never went into action, but the ones that did were important.

Education plans would be the next area I most care about in a candidate. Ill save that for a later post, as I don't have time atm to go into that. Or maybe someone else will cover that.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 27, 2004, 10:17 pm

Bush is just plain unacceptable for another term. I HATE Kerry's time zone flip flopping. Still, it's a no contest as to who is getting my vote.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 27, 2004, 10:20 pm

Keverian, you are the best supporter of Kerry on the board so far, but I have one question I cannot find the answer for on your provided link, How is he going to pay for all that? Thanks by the way Kev, I did read his site previously but I took another look.

So far, there are several Bush haters and one pro Kerry (and even Kev is dissatisfied). So if Kerry ran against Gore in a Primary, would Kerry or Gore win?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 27, 2004, 10:26 pm

<-- Not a Bush hater, I just don't think he's qualified. I voted for him over Gore because I thought he was more qualified than his opponent, I'll probably vote for him over Kerry because I don't trust Lurch at all.

If it was Kerry vs Gore.. I'd probably vote gore.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 27, 2004, 10:35 pm

I am for Kerry on his own merit. I absolutely do not buy into the whole negative ad campaign that Bush has done.

Bills have things tacked onto them, an extreme example of this is - say a bill was for 500 million for defense, but it also stated all the women in america needed to be killed - you obviously wouldn't vote yes on it.

To me - Kerry seems like a good guy (for a politician).

What Kerry is for and his plans are easily enough accessible at http://www.johnkerry.com - I am for about 90% of what he wants to do for america as president.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 27, 2004, 10:59 pm

Keverian, you are the best supporter of Kerry on the board so far, but I have one question I cannot find the answer for on your provided link, How is he going to pay for all that? Thanks by the way Kev, I did read his site previously but I took another look.

Get ready to take back what you said about me being the best Kerry supporter, as I do not know in detail how he is going to pay for it all. Part of my answer would be to ask you a similar question:

How could Bush afford to spend 80billion+ on a war that has been proven so far to be counterproductive to the war on terror and to the well-being of the Iraqi people when the US is in debt trillions of dollars? I would imagine a lot could be done towards the health of our environment using just a fraction of that money spent towards a war I believe was completely unnecesary...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 12:05 am

Hey Kev, no argument from me, if there had been a single shred of evidence related to any of the reasons we went into Iraq turn up I may have felt differently, but with 80 billion for Iraq, 15 billion misspent on AIDS, I question the logic of Bush heavily.

However I still get ooky feelings about Kerry, I really do have that Dead Zone he will push the button feeling about him.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 28, 2004, 12:45 am

As far as a Democrat goes, Kerry is by far one of the best IMO. He was by far my favorite compared to all the other canidates, as he is slightly more on a libertarian or liberal front on a social basis. He can lead us foward, and has the potential to be not just a good, but great president. I dont like how hes standing against Bush's tax cuts, but thats one of my only issues with the man.
Unfortunately the american public are very ignorant on a political level, they'll judge a canidate on how well they speak or how young they look.

If John Edwards or Wesley Clark were nominated, they would be BEATING THE LIVING SHIT out of Bush at the moment. Yet the american public cant trust Kerry based solely on his appearance and the strong negative attacks by the Bush team.

When i look for a president, i could give two shits about there record, how many lines theyv done or how many DUI's they have on there record, I look to see what the Canidate believes in, and what they can accomplish with the direction they want to country to go in.
Kerry is clearly a politican, hes in a difficult position where he has to stray more to the conservative center and appeal to a moderate base to win over the american public. I honestly believe that when Kerry is in the White house, we will see a determined man with a clear vision

nobody · Post by **nobody** » June 28, 2004, 12:56 am

i think it's sad that politicians have to sway closer to one side or the other in order to pick up enough votes. why can't someone just run on what they feel is right?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 28, 2004, 12:57 am

However I still get ooky feelings about Kerry, I really do have that Dead Zone he will push the button feeling about him.

You get ooky feelings about Kerry. But you KNOW that Bush should not be in office. Sometimes you just have to make a decision between the lesser of two evils. Who do you think that is? For me, I'll gladly take a chance with Kerry over having Bush in the office for 4 more horribly destructive years. Of course, for me that's a pretty easy decision as I am very liberal. Im sure it will be a lot harder for you to vote for a Democrat, but I hope you will give it good consideration as it is the only chance America has of getting Bush out.

And I hope to god your vote isn't decided because you think Kerry looks like a zombie.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 28, 2004, 12:59 am

nobody wrote:i think it's sad that politicians have to sway closer to one side or the other in order to pick up enough votes. why can't someone just run on what they feel is right?

They can and do...
There called 3rd party canidates, they get 3-4% of the vote

nobody · Post by **nobody** » June 28, 2004, 1:22 am

Xzion wrote:
nobody wrote:i think it's sad that politicians have to sway closer to one side or the other in order to pick up enough votes. why can't someone just run on what they feel is right?
They can and do...
There called 3rd party canidates, they get 3-4% of the vote

two parties are just not enough. i would like to see a stronger 3rd party. there's nothing wrong with voting for a third party even knowing it's going to take votes away from your second choice canidate. as long as that party reflects your views. i won't vote for Kerry but i could live with seeing him win b/c i voted for the third party. my opinion is more clearly stated that way.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 28, 2004, 2:12 am

My problem with Kerry is that he hasn't offered plans to his solutions. Hell He hasn't offered solutions period!

I am still undecided. Right now I am in the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't camp."

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 28, 2004, 2:15 am

Arilain wrote:My problem with Kerry is that he hasn't offered plans to his solutions. Hell He hasn't offered solutions period!

what

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 28, 2004, 2:41 am

Well I will be honest and looked at the link. Still to my dismay I see only rhetoric and not real solutions. The same crap is on GW's site. Sometime s I wonder if they colaborate on what they will put up.

Let me reiterate here. Saying you will do something and actually showing a comphrensive plan are two totally different things. Niether canidate can show this.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 28, 2004, 5:35 am

Arilain wrote:Well I will be honest and looked at the link. Still to my dismay I see only rhetoric and not real solutions. The same crap is on GW's site. Sometime s I wonder if they colaborate on what they will put up.

Let me reiterate here. Saying you will do something and actually showing a comphrensive plan are two totally different things. Niether canidate can show this.

What's the weather like on your planet? Here on earth we know that the closest thing you'll get to a comprehensive plan is a budget document that explains how the election promises will be funded.

Even then, everyone knows that there are promises, election promises, "non-core" election promises, and the truth.

This is part of the reason incumbent parties usually stay in power, better the devil you know. That said, when the devil is Bush, you could run a potted plant against him and expect to win because at least it can't be as bad.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » June 28, 2004, 6:13 am

can i ebay my vote?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 8:52 am

Stragi wrote:can i ebay my vote?

Hmm Michigan is noted as a possible swing state, I bet Florida, Ohio votes would also be worth cash.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 9:00 am

Keverian FireCry wrote:And I hope to god your vote isn't decided because you think Kerry looks like a zombie.

No, but you know what, I am willing to bet that there is going to be enough gridlock over the things that GW has already done that the worst of his damage is over. While Kerry would be an entirely new level of fucking up, I really do think Bush will spend the next 4 years apologizing.

I really am planning on voting Libertarian at this point, but I am willing to listen. Xzion said

Xzion wrote:Yet the american public cant trust Kerry based solely on his appearance and the strong negative attacks by the Bush team.

I do not think this is the whole of it, I think Kerry has made a case that he is the cbest choice, I think his case right now is that he is the other choice, not the right choice.

I do not want to vote against, so I am voting for someone I think has the best idea. If they lose then in the next election that is one vote the will be taken more seriously by.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 28, 2004, 9:13 am

Kylere wrote:No, but you know what, I am willing to bet that there is going to be enough gridlock over the things that GW has already done that the worst of his damage is over. While Kerry would be an entirely new level of fucking up, I really do think Bush will spend the next 4 years apologizing.

Of course you risk him going even more rambo when he won't be restrained by public opinion and worries of re-election.

We have seen the administration's stance on Iraq take a major shift the last 6 months. How much of that would have taken place if he wasn't dropping in the polls?

If Bush is re-elected what do you honestly think are the chances he'll invade another country?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 28, 2004, 9:26 am

Forthe wrote:
Kylere wrote:No, but you know what, I am willing to bet that there is going to be enough gridlock over the things that GW has already done that the worst of his damage is over. While Kerry would be an entirely new level of fucking up, I really do think Bush will spend the next 4 years apologizing.
Of course you risk him going even more rambo when he won't be restrained by public opinion and worries of re-election.

We have seen the administration's stance on Iraq take a major shift the last 6 months. How much of that would have taken place if he wasn't dropping in the polls?

If Bush is re-elected what do you honestly think are the chances he'll invade another country?

Actually, my largest concerns for his reelection are (a) the damage that he will do to our environment, (b) what damage he will do to the economy through ill advised spending, (c) the damage he will do through poor postwar (mis)management of Iraq, and (d) the odds of him invading Syria/Libya/Iran or whereever else tickles Rumsfeld's fancy at the time.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 28, 2004, 9:28 am

kyoukan wrote:without even regarding there is a lot more to like about kerry than there is about bush. when you look at the collosal failures of the bush admin there isn't even a comparison.

kerry = war hero, scholar and life long servant of the united states and its people.

bush = spoiled brat, draft dodging alcoholic and coke addict who ruined 3 businesses and has been arrested 3 times from everything from DUI to securities fraud, who recently found jesus. shit, he isn't presidential material, he's about the same level as an common ex-felon. the only difference is his daddy is a rich politician and not a garbage man or a teacher.

Kerry= Baby Killer

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 10:21 am

Cartalas wrote:
kyoukan wrote:without even regarding there is a lot more to like about kerry than there is about bush. when you look at the collosal failures of the bush admin there isn't even a comparison.

kerry = war hero, scholar and life long servant of the united states and its people.

bush = spoiled brat, draft dodging alcoholic and coke addict who ruined 3 businesses and has been arrested 3 times from everything from DUI to securities fraud, who recently found jesus. shit, he isn't presidential material, he's about the same level as an common ex-felon. the only difference is his daddy is a rich politician and not a garbage man or a teacher.
Kerry= Baby Killer

Cartalas, only Toshira proclaimed all soldiers as killers, no one else has been that stupid yet, so calling Kerry a baby killer makes you the first since Toshira.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 10:26 am

Short of them openly assaulting us, the United States is not capable of invading any country larger than Grenada until we recover assets from Iraq.

The entire shift of the DOD's military structure post Cold War was to be able to fight two Korea size conflicts simultaneously. They have failed miserably, because at this point without pissing of the Japanese, Taiwanese, Germans ( and don't think the germans do not locally appreciate the almighty dollar, we pull 25k from Germany and their towns get hit like the UAW not compromising hit Flint Michigan, there are several cities in England, etc. not to mention that we would hurt American towns outside of military bases) South Koreans, etc. We just do not have the force with two conflicts already occuring.

Do I think Bush might desire to? Hmm it is really hard to say to be honest, I think he would be a lot more cautious now, but that is no promise. I honestly think the Grand Jury investigations will keep him doile for the next 4 years.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 28, 2004, 11:11 am

Back to the question...

I would not vote for Kerry based on his record and politics. But, because Bush is a moron playing the worst kind partisan LCD politics, I have to give him a shot.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 28, 2004, 12:50 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote: How could Bush afford to spend 80billion+ on a war that has been proven so far to be counterproductive to the war on terror and to the well-being of the Iraqi people when the US is in debt trillions of dollars? I would imagine a lot could be done towards the health of our environment using just a fraction of that money spent towards a war I believe was completely unnecesary...

I think that's Ky's point.

Quite frankly, Bush Jr. (and especially his cabinet)is bad enough to warrant removal. Just vote for the one guy who can knock him out, and in four years, maybe the Republicans will have a better platform torch bearer then. I've voted Republican in the past and wouldn't mind doing so again to be honest. As long as a candidate can maintain policies that truly help the middle class, provide reasonable assistance to the lower class that actually helps them achieve (as opposed to making them perma-lower), not try and bulldoze other cultures to our will just because our GNP allows us to field the most powerful military, provide proven ways of spurring job growth ie. not by giving the people/companies with unlimited abilities to get even more wealthy breaks that do nothing but allow them to contribute to the politician's campaign/backpockets, try to keep the budget balanced, and have a real concern about the environment as opposed to giving certain companies breaks or contracts to solutions which don't work or are even more detrimental for global health, I'll vote for them.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 28, 2004, 2:15 pm

Kylere wrote:No, but you know what, I am willing to bet that there is going to be enough gridlock over the things that GW has already done that the worst of his damage is over.

Until North Korea and the US are on good terms, the worst has not even come close to being over. Versus N.K. we would lose. It would be bloody. It would be long. And it would last until Bush's 4 years were over and the next president got us out of there. (I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying the 'worst' hasn't happened yet)

Kylere wrote:I really do think Bush will spend the next 4 years apologizing.

For what purpose? He wouldn't have to worry about getting reelected. Short of being impeached, he's got no reason to apologize for anything. Nor the intelligence to do so. He's a spoiled rich brat. Such people are above apologies.

Kylere wrote:I do not want to vote against, so I am voting for someone I think has the best idea. If they lose then in the next election that is one vote the will be taken more seriously by.

If I vote for Beavis or Butthead, will they be taken more seriously as presidential candidates?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 28, 2004, 2:15 pm

/highfive Chidoro

I really hate to vote against people though, seems silly. I would encourage everyone to find A candidate they can morally, ethically, and politically support and then do so. This election is a wash anyways.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 28, 2004, 2:20 pm

We wouldn't have to tackle DPRK alone. China wants some of that ass, too.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 28, 2004, 3:16 pm

I would love to vote based who I want in. None of the canidates offer anything other than rhetoric.

For example, Kerry doesn't say how he will fund his promises, and Bush? Hell...He doesn't even offer solutions to most problems. He has addressed education a bit and veterans benefits but like Kerry has not told us how the hell we will pay for it.

Like they could say this hypotheticly -

We will start this x program for educating our kids by using the money we will save by shutting down military bases where we do not need them. They could also propose a tax (very unpopular) or say due to reform in the bureacracy enough money would be available to start a program.

Any good politician will tell you what you want to hear but will always avoid details. I am thinking that come election day I will just go out to the beach or river with some beer and toast to the end of the world.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 28, 2004, 3:54 pm

No, but you know what, I am willing to bet that there is going to be enough gridlock over the things that GW has already done that the worst of his damage is over. While Kerry would be an entirely new level of fucking up, I really do think Bush will spend the next 4 years apologizing.

Gonna have to disagree with that. This administration thinks God is behind them in everything they do. They don't think they have anything to apologize about, they believe in what they are doing 100% and will continue on this path for 4 more years if we let them.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 28, 2004, 4:41 pm

Arilain wrote:My problem with Kerry is that he hasn't offered plans to his solutions. Hell He hasn't offered solutions period!

I am still undecided. Right now I am in the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't camp."

George Bush would disagree with you. Since the Democratic primaries, Bush has basically changed course and attempted to do what Kerry suggested in Iraq (get NATO involved, further internationalize effort, etc.).

it may be a smart political move to eliminate a source of contention for Bush, and most of the electorate will not realize he is the one who has changed course to some of his critics' suggestions.

by the way, what is up with the anime/white power avatar?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 28, 2004, 6:16 pm

Arilain wrote: For example, Kerry doesn't say how he will fund his promises, and Bush? Hell...He doesn't even offer solutions to most problems. He has addressed education a bit and veterans benefits but like Kerry has not told us how the hell we will pay for it.

Well, what's worse (again with that phrase), not defining a few issues and the source of their funding or throwing a shitload of issues out there that have NO funding and yet have the audacity to lower taxes. Shit, if you don't agree w/ the programs, it's one thing, but if you agree and spend like the dickens yet lower your source provider (especially for the few that already do huge just staring at 2%), you have to question.
Do you want proven failures continuing to the detriment of our children (or even their children) or do you "nitpick" about a program that has questionable funding. In other words, we already KNOW Bush doesn't give a shit throwing us into shitty debt, give Kerry a chance to prove he can or can't. If he can't, and it's the primary platform of the time, toss his ass out.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 28, 2004, 9:26 pm

I think Kerry will make anywhere for a terrible to average president. The only reason I will be voting for him is because of Bush.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 29, 2004, 12:14 pm

even if Kerry is terrible, he will most likely have a Republican legislature to check him.

so i think worst case we get 4 years of gridlock, which is absolutely preferrable to 4 years of a reactionary theocrat.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 29, 2004, 12:59 pm

I am convinced that Kerry will put the country in a worse situation than Bush and based on his record in congress and the hypocracy that has plauged his campaign I can not vote for him. I would rather vote for someone rather than against. As of right now I am still looking, but I know I will not be voteing for him.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 29, 2004, 1:02 pm

Voronwë wrote:even if Kerry is terrible, he will most likely have a Republican legislature to check him.

so i think worst case we get 4 years of gridlock, which is absolutely preferrable to 4 years of a reactionary theocrat.

Gridlock worked for Clinton.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 29, 2004, 1:23 pm

I voted for Bush, because I absolutely could not stand the Gore party, that being the heart and soul of the PMRC in his wife and running mate....

That said, Bush is certainly not the best president we have ever had...mistakes abound in that one...

Ross Perot running this time?

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 29, 2004, 1:25 pm

The PMRC is an evil institution!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 29, 2004, 6:00 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Voronwë wrote:even if Kerry is terrible, he will most likely have a Republican legislature to check him.

so i think worst case we get 4 years of gridlock, which is absolutely preferrable to 4 years of a reactionary theocrat.
Gridlock worked for Clinton.

worked for the whole country apparently

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 29, 2004, 7:46 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Voronwë wrote:even if Kerry is terrible, he will most likely have a Republican legislature to check him.

so i think worst case we get 4 years of gridlock, which is absolutely preferrable to 4 years of a reactionary theocrat.
Gridlock worked for Clinton.
worked for the whole country apparently

That was my point Voro

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 29, 2004, 9:11 pm

Arilain wrote:Well I will be honest and looked at the link. Still to my dismay I see only rhetoric and not real solutions.

Here is just one issue of several dozen on his website:

John Kerry's Plan to Create 10 Million Jobs wrote:The Most Sweeping International Tax Reform in Over Four Decades in Order to Encourage Companies to Create Jobs in America and Stop Shifting Jobs Overseas for Tax Reasons

John Kerry is unveiling a comprehensive economic agenda that will unleash the productive potential of America's economy to help it create 10 million jobs in his first term as President. Over the next several weeks, Kerry will unveil a series of proposals that will restore confidence in the economy and spur job creation.

Today, Kerry is detailing a key part of his overall jobs agenda - a proposal to undertake the most sweeping international corporate tax reform in over four decades. Kerry will eliminate all of the tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and use the savings to encourage companies to create jobs in America. Kerry will help jumpstart job creation with a New Jobs Tax Credit paid for by a one-year tax holiday to encourage companies to reinvest their foreign earnings in America. International tax reform is part of Kerry's overall plan to regain America's competitive edge, together with policies to lower the cost of health premiums for companies, modernize our information infrastructure, make energy more affordable, increase investments in education, and regain confidence in our fiscal future.

SUMMARY OF JOHN KERRY'S TAX REFORM

FUNDAMENTALLY REFORM AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL TAX SYSTEM. John Kerry will fundamentally reform America's international tax system, eliminating tax breaks for companies that create jobs overseas and using the approximately $12 billion in annual savings to cut the corporate tax rate. Under John Kerry's plan, more than 99 percent of taxpaying companies will see their taxes go down.

End tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas by eliminating the ability of companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on foreign income.

Close abusive international tax loopholes.

Cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent.
JUMPSTART JOB GROWTH WITH A NEW JOBS TAX CREDIT AND A ONE-YEAR TAX HOLIDAY TO ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO REPATRIATE PROFITS
Restart job growth today with an expanded New Jobs Tax Credit that covers new jobs in manufacturing, other industries affected by outsourcing and small businesses.

Increase investment to jumpstart the economy by encouraging American companies to bring their foreign profits back to America as part of a comprehensive tax reform that ends incentives to keep future profits overseas.
DETAILED EXPLANATION OF JOHN KERRY'S INTERNATIONAL TAX REFORM PLAN

Rationale for Kerry's Reform: Current tax laws allow companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries, providing a substantial tax break for companies that move investment and jobs overseas. Today, under U.S.tax law, a company that is trying to decide between locating production or services in the United States or in a foreign low-tax haven is actually given a substantial tax incentive not only to move jobs overseas, but to re-invest profits permanently, as opposed to bring them back and re-invest in the United States.

Senator Kerry does not believe that we should force a U.S. company that chooses to create jobs in the United States to pay higher taxes and suffer a competitive disadvantage with a company that chooses to move jobs to a tax haven and keep profits there permanently.

Foreign taxes are one-third lower than U.S. taxes. When an American company invests in America it can expect to pay an average tax rate of 31 percent. When this company invests abroad, it faces an average tax rate of 21 percent. [Department of Treasury, "The Deferral of Income Earned through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations," December 2000]

The average tax rate in the countries America invests in has fallen sharply over the last twenty years proving an increasing incentive to ship jobs overseas. In 1984 the average tax rate paid by American companies on foreign income was 34 percent - even higher than the U.S. tax rate. But the foreign rate has fallen steadily, reaching a low of 21 percent in 1996. Although U.S. deferral rules have been largely unchanged over this period, declining corporate tax rates in foreign countries and a shift in the countries where Americans invest mean that deferral today provides a much larger incentive to ship jobs overseas than it did 20 years ago. [Department of Treasury, "The Deferral of Income Earned through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations," December 2000]

Deferring taxes provides a big tax break for corporations and encourages them to keep their profits locked up overseas. American companies do not have to pay taxes on their active foreign income until they bring it back to the United States. If they keep their money abroad, a company can avoid paying U.S. taxes entirely. In addition, this provides an incentive for companies to keep re-investing their money abroad, and not to bring it back to contribute investment and growth to the American economy.

In total, not only do American companies defer paying taxes on income earned abroad, but they end up getting an $8 billion annual subsidy for investing abroad - that is, American companies pay negative U.S. income taxes on their foreign investments. According to a study published by the conservative American Enterprise Institute written by two leading tax economists, including an economist at the U.S. Treasury, American companies get an annual tax subsidy of $8 billion for investing abroad. That is, their taxes are currently $8 billion lower than they would be if all foreign income taxes were entirely eliminated. This is because the current system of deferral and cross-crediting allows companies to effectively receive net tax credits from the U.S. Treasury for their foreign investments. [Harry Grubert and John Mutti, Taxing International Business Income: Dividend Exemption vs. the Current System, AEI Press, 2001]

The tax laws for income earned in foreign countries have been so complicated that the system is almost completely broken. The rules of Subpart F which govern the taxation of foreign subsidiaries controlled by American companies have become increasingly complicated over time, adding to the overall complexity of the tax code and making it easier for companies to exploit loopholes to escape taxes.

Experts agree that deferral provides a substantial incentive for American companies to locate investment and jobs overseas.

Conservative economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute: "The U.S. tax code definitely provides a strong incentive for sending jobs overseas." [WSJ, 3/12/2004]"

Congressional Research Service: "Economic theory is relatively clear on the basic incentive impact of the system: it encourages U.S. firms to invest more capital than they otherwise would in overseas locations where local taxes are low… Accordingly, deferral poses an incentive for U.S. firms to invest abroad in countries with low tax rates over investment in the United States." ["Tax Exemption for Repatriated Foreign Earnings," 10/22/2003]

Martin Sullivan, Tax Analyst. "The U.S. tax system is set up, unfortunately, in a manner that it is far more profitable to set up an operation in Ireland or in Singapore than it is in Des Moines, Iowa." [Kudlow & Kramer Transcript, 3/12/2004]

Steve Liesman, Senior Economics Reporter for CNBC. "Turns out there really are provisions in the tax code that seem to encourage sending jobs offshore… One of the most important is through the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are."

Bush Economic Adviser Harvey Rosen: "Profits earned by a foreign subsidiary are taxed only if returned (repatriated). Thus, for as long as a subsidiary exists, earnings retained abroad can be kept out of reach of the US tax system… to the extent that a foreign country taxes corporate income less heavily than it does the United States, deferral makes the country attractive to US firms as a 'tax haven.'"
Kerry's International Tax Reform Proposal: John Kerry is proposing the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over forty years: eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allowed to defer taxes.
Eliminating deferral so companies are taxed the same whether they invest abroad or at home. John Kerry will eliminate all of the complications in the current Subpart F regime and replace them with a simple system: companies will be taxed on their foreign subsidiaries profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits. The new system will apply to profits earned in future years - it will not be applied retroactively to profits already earned abroad.

Promoting America's competitiveness in a global economy. Kerry's plan will still allow companies to defer the income they earn when they locate production in a foreign country that serves that foreign country's markets. This will ensure American companies can compete in international markets. For example, if you want to open a hotel in Bermuda, a bank branch in Shanghai to service the Chinese market, or a car factory in India to sell cars in India, you can still defer your foreign income. But if you open up a call center in India to answer calls from outside of India or re-locate abroad to sell cars back to the United States or Canada you must pay taxes just like call centers and auto manufacturers in the United States.

Close abusive international tax loopholes. John Kerry is proposing to end abuses that allow American companies to escape taxes by taking advantage of complicated international tax rules. These abuses include "corporate inversion" where an American company moves its headquarters to a tax haven like Bermuda to avoid taxes, certain types of cross-crediting that encourage companies to shift income and jobs to low-tax havens, restricting tax avoidance through hybrid structures, and other abuses.

Eliminating deferral will improve the efficiency of the economy by making taxes neutral so that they do not encourage companies to over-invest abroad solely for tax reasons. Currently American companies allocate their money not in search of the highest return but in search of the lowest taxes. Eliminating this incentive will increase the efficiency of the economy:
Congressional Research Service: "According to traditional economic theory, deferral thus reduces economic welfare by encouraging firms to undertake overseas investments that are less productive - before taxes are considered - than alternative investments in the United States." ["Tax Exemption for Repatriated Foreign Earnings," 10/22/2003]

Department of the Treasury: "Among all of the options considered, ending deferral would also be likely to have the most positive long-term effect on economic efficiency and welfare because it would do the most to eliminate tax considerations from decisions regarding the location of investment." ["The Deferral of Income Earned Through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations," 12/2000]

George Bush's Economic Adviser Harvey Rosen (Member of the Council of Economic Advisors): "The maximization of world income requires that the before-tax rate of return on the last dollar invested - the marginal rate of return - be equated." [Public Finance, McGraw-Hill/Irwin]

Jane Gravelle, Tax Expert: "If the objective is to move in the direction of conforming U.S. tax more closely to capital export neutrality, certain revisions that would move in that direction would be appropriate. These revisions include current taxation of earnings of controlled foreign corporations."

Kerry's Plan to Lower Corporate Rates by 5 percent to Improve Competitiveness. Kerry's plan saves an average of $12 billion annually from eliminating the ability of companies to defer taxes on foreign income and closing corporate loopholes. These savings are all used to cut corporate tax rates by 5 percent.
Cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent. Kerry's proposal will not increase the deficit or corporate taxes by one dime. All of the savings from ending tax breaks will go towards lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent today to 33.25 percent - a 5 percent reduction.

Enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. companies by cutting taxes for more than 99 percent of taxpaying companies. By ending tax incentives to move jobs overseas and using those funds to lower the corporate tax rate the Kerry international tax reform will increase investment and hiring by American companies. An analysis of IRS data shows that more than 99 percent of corporations paying corporate income taxes would see their taxes reduced by Kerry's proposal.

Lowering the tax differential with foreign countries. The tax differential between U.S. corporate rates and foreign corporate rates have grown over the last two decades. Kerry's proposal would begin to narrow that gap again.

Kerry's One-time Holiday to Encourage Companies to Reinvest their Foreign Profits in America: Kerry's plan will unlock billions of profits that are stuck abroad, encouraging American companies to bring their profits back to America and re-invest them to jump-start the economy. This holiday will work to increase investment because it is part of a comprehensive plan to transition to a new system that eliminates deferral and the associated incentives to keep profits overseas.

More than $639 billion of American profits are stuck abroad. At the end of 2002 American companies were keeping $639 billion in profits abroad, avoiding having to pay taxes on this money. This is up sharply from $403 billion in profits in 1999. [CRS, "Tax Exemption for Repatriated Foreign Earnings," 10/22/2003]

Encouraging companies to bring that money back to America with a one-year, 10 percent tax holiday. Kerry's plan will encourage companies to bring that money back and invest it in the American economy. For a one-year period only, Kerry will provide companies with a special low rate of 10 percent on any profits they reinvest in the United States for companies with a domestic reinvestment plan. This rate will only apply to repatriations in excess of average repatriations over a base period.

Increasing investment. By ending future incentives to keep profits abroad and combining this with an appropriate transition that provides a one-time tax holiday this would increase investment and stimulate the American economy, helping to re-start job growth.

Paying for the New Jobs Tax Credit. The tax holiday would result in an immediate revenue gain which would pay for the New Jobs Tax Credit - another boost to job growth in America.

SMALL BUSINESSES THAT CREATE JOBS PAY LOWER TAXES UNDER JOHN KERRY THAN UNDER GEORGE BUSH
Restarting job growth today with a New Jobs Tax Credit for manufacturing, other industries affected by outsourcing and small businesses. John Kerry is proposing an expanded version of his New Jobs Tax Credit to provide a tax credit to cover employers' payroll taxes for new jobs created in manufacturing, other industries affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

Tax credit covers employer's payroll tax costs for new hires. Kerry's New Jobs Tax Credit will cover the employer's increase in payroll tax costs. If a company currently employing 100 people goes up to 110 people, this company would get a tax credit to cover the added payroll tax costs it would need to pay for those 10 extra employees.

Applicability of the credit. The Secretary of the Treasury - in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce - would determine which industries were classified as "manufacturing and other industries affected by outsourcing." This determination would be based on industries - and companies - where the majority of the employees are engaged in manufacturing or potentially subject to outsourcing, a category that would include call centers and software workers. The small business credit would be available to businesses that employ up to 99 people.

Academic research demonstrates that New Jobs Tax Credits increase employment. According to one study, "Those firms that knew about the program hired over 3 percent more workers than other firms." [Jeffrey Perloff and Michael Wachter, "The New Jobs Tax Credit: An Evaluation of the 1977-78 Wage Subsidy Program," AER Papers and Proceedings, May 1979.]

Top Princeton labor economist Alan Krueger notes value of previous new jobs tax credit: "[T]he Bush tax cuts were aimed not specifically at job creation... In previous recessions, counter cyclical policy was focused on job creation." Krueger notes when a new jobs tax credit "which gave employers a tax rebate if they expanded employment" was previously utilized studies "suggested that the tax credit spurred job growth." [New York Times, July 24, 2003]

Small businesses owners that create jobs would pay lower taxes and provide health care to their workers would pay lower taxes under Kerry than under Bush. Here are four examples of small businesses and how they fare under the tax plans of Kerry and Bush:

KERRY NET TAX CUT INCLUDING EFFECTS OF REPEAL
OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR FAMILIES MAKING OVER
$200,000 AND THE NEW JOBS TAX CREDIT BUSH TAX CUT
95% of small business owner making $200,000
(AGI) even if they do not create any jobs No tax change No tax change
A small business owner making $100,000
who hires 1 additional workers making $30,000 $2,295 tax cut No tax cut
A small business owner making $250,000
who hires 2 additional workers making $30,000 $2,739 tax cut No tax cut
A small business owner making $500,000
who hires 4 additional workers making $50,000 $2,969 tax cut No tax cut

Note: This table does not include the impact of Kerry's proposal to provide a tax credit for small businesses that buy health insurance for their workers.

GEORGE BUSH'S BROKEN PROMISE TO CREATE JOBS

The Bush Jobs Record: After three years and the loss of nearly 3 million private sector jobs, President has the distinction of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression.
Since January 2001, Bush has presided over the loss of 2.9 million private sector jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

Bush is over 7 million jobs behind the projections of job growth made by his own Council of Economic Advisors in February 2002. Annual job growth projections in the 2002 Economic Report of the President implied job growth of 5.2 million between January 2001 and February 2004. Instead we have lost 2.2 million jobs.

Even in the so-called "recovery" after 9/11 and the recession, Bush's jobs record is abysmal. Since the recession ended in November 2001, we have lost 1.3 million private sector jobs. Goldman Sachs finds that job growth in the current recovery has proceeded at a "slower pace than any other economic expansion on record." [Goldman Sachs U.S. Economic Analysis, March 19, 2004]

Putting Job Creation Last: Despite the jobs crisis, President Bush has chosen time and time again to put job creation for middle-class families absolutely last, and a single-minded strategy of long-term tax cuts for the well-off first. Numerous independent analyses confirm that the President's tax policies offered little bang-for-the-buck in jumpstarting job growth in our economy.

The Administration's original 2001 tax proposal had absolutely no direct stimulus in 2001. Only under Democratic pressure did the 2001 cut include a partial rebate to put money immediately into family's pockets. Still, the Administration insisted on making the partial rebates non-refundable, therefore leaving out the 34 million low-income taxpayers most likely to spend it.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration ignored the growing jobs crisis and pushed non-stimulus corporate tax cuts like eliminating the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.

The Congressional Budget Office concluded that eliminating the Corporate AMT would be poor stimulus: "[It] does little by itself to change the near-term incentive for businesses to invest. Its bang for the buck is small because it is primarily a reduction in taxes on the return from capital that is already in place, not an incentive for new investment." [Congressional Budget Office, Economic Stimulus: Evaluating Proposed Changes in Tax Policy, January 2002.]

Yet eliminating the corporate AMT would have given $25 billion in immediate rebates to just 16 companies - including a $254 million rebate to Enron. [Congressional Research Service. "Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax for 50 Corporations," October 16, 2001]

In 2003, the Administration again opted for capital gains and dividend tax cuts judged by independent organizations to be extremely poor stimulus.

The Congressional Research Service found that "[a] capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus." [Jane G. Gravelle "Economic and Revenue Effects of Permanent and Temporary Capital Gains Tax Cuts" updated January 29, 2003].

A Goldman Sachs analysis concluded that "[t]he dividend tax exclusion looks especially ineffective as a stimulative measure, providing only 8 cents on the dollar." [Goldman Sachs U.S.Economics Analyst. "Fiscal Policy - In Search of Balance, Creativity, and Grit," May 2, 2003.]

Warren Buffett described the dividend tax cut as "class welfare. For my class." [Warren Buffett. "Dividend Voodoo," Washington Post, May 20, 2003]

Targeting fiscal relief to struggling states, as John Kerry has proposed, would have provided more than ten times the short-term bang-for-the-buck of the Administration's dividend cut proposal. ["The Need For Federal Government Aid to State Government," Economy.com, February 2003.]

You call this rhetoric? I call this a well developed and thoroghly thought out plan. Maybe you just never bothered to investigate beyond the first page...

VeeshanVault

On his own Merit, who would vote for Kerry?

On his own Merit, who would vote for Kerry?

Re: On his own Merit, who would vote for Kerry?