these are sincere questions

You're very right, Lookout, and I'm actually sad to say I will be voting for Kerry when I truly don't like him. Am I voting for him in order to vote out Bush? Yeah. Is that the right reason to vote for someone? I'd say "no", but hasn't voting for someone always been selecting the lesser of two evils? Only now is there a strong sense within a percentage of the country that they really, truly want someone out, and maybe that changes the perception of the election and the methods of accomplishing that goal. The election this year will be one of the most interesting this country has ever had because of these aspects, too.

I've got to say I've never been pleased with any of the candidates that have run and their positions on everything, nor have I ever been pleased with the majority of the things they stand for.

No, Clinton.

Dean was remarkably moderate almost.....secular. I was a big Dean fan. He gave me some hope. But now it rests in Kerry.

I support the Kerry ticket because they are running on the democratic platform. They believe in the separation of church and state. (kerry still has to pander and explain his Catholism- wouldnt it be great to have an athiest candiate!) Both Johns are more moderate than me on gay marriage but at least they are against screwing with the constitution to "protect" a religious definition of holy matrimony and deny rights. I like that they would repeal the tax break for the wealthiest Americans, as I am dead-on average income American (not too far from low) and I have felt the financial hit from the defunding of important social programs in schools, my city, my healthcare, etc in my soaring property taxes. I am alarmed by the great economic divide- the two Americas speach is real to me. I like that they would repeal Bush's attacks on National park lands and encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Edwards is a trial lawyer- this does not alarm or enflame me. If my kid has her intestines sucked out at the public pool by a insecured drain pump, I want to be able to sue, to ensure the problem is fixed and to help pay for her lifelong care. Yes there are frivilous law suits, but yes there are important ones too. I believe in corporate accountability to the law and the judicial rights of an individual, even being the daughter of an insurance claims investigator.

The war: I believe Kerry would have been more cautious, diplomatic...basically he would have been smarter. I believe he would have concentrated on Afghanistan. I think Kerry is a smarter man than Bush. And I think Kerry is a more ethical man than Cheney, who seems to really be in charge. Kerry and Edwards, as the majority did, supported the war with the info presented them. I'm concerned about now. I think Kerry can do a better job with foreign policy, military operation, and rethinking the intellegency orgs than Bush.

Theres more but thats it for now. Gotta get back to work.

I hadn't heard that, and a quick Google didn't turn anything up. Unless there's a quote from Clinton, I think you may be making my point.

Kerry and Edwards are not likely to continue down the same pave-the-middle-east path as Bush.

Kerry and Edwards are not "protect the children"-banner-waving culture warriors the way that Al, Tipper and Holy Joe were.

Kerry and Edwards won't give me heart palpitations if an opening pops up on the Supreme Court. That's not to say that I'm not concerned about who they'd try to appoint, but it's reasonably safe to say they wouldn't pick someone who'd make Scalia and Thomas look like card-carrying communists.

I could run down a lot of differences between the usual Democratic and Republican platforms, but you know what the two parties generally stand for, right? That's my deal -- Kerry and Edwards will pursue a much more left-leaning platform than Bush and Cheney will, and will probably not fuck up quite as dramatically as Bush and Cheney have over the last four years.

It's like replacing a guy who shits in your hat every morning with a guy with nasty garlic breath. Life won't be perfect with the replacement, either, but the important thing is to get the hat-shitter out of the office first.

I have here a raw potato and a pile of shit. You have to eat one. Which would you rather eat, and why? When answering me, I don't want to hear about how eating shit is bad. Just talk about how good a raw potato is.

In voting for John Kerry, I can only compare him to Bush. That's the choice presented to me. He's not Bush, and that says a LOT to me. He's honestly not my ideal candidate, but we are stuck with him. I'd much rather see Bill Clinton running again. I miss peace and prosperity.

The reasons I will vote for Kerry include:

-He has devoted most of his life to public service. He has tried to make this country a better place. Starting in the military, then as a rabble rousing protester against the war in Vietnam, then some lawyer stuff in Mass. (prosecutor, private practice, local government I think?), then working on Capitol Hill for a long time. Compare that to Bush who had everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter, including the Presidency.

-He has voted in line with what I agree with more often than not. Also, his so called "waffling" voting record is justified. He votes different ways at different times because the wording of bills change, and the changes are sometimes significant enough to change the fundamental meaning of the bills. Also he changes his position on issues as the situation changes. This is similar to Bush first considering Pakistan an enemy and then later considering it an ally. The Republicans are shrewd, but hardly fair, to try to label him as a waffler.

-He would take a better stance on domestic issues than Bush. Kerry is better on the environment, on energy, on protecting the consumer, on education, on the economy/taxes, etc. etc. I can't think of single thing that I trust Bush on domestically over Kerry. Bush will fight for the rich and for corporations, Kerry will fight for the rest of us.

-In foreign policy, I trust Kerry more than Bush. He has 18 years of experience in the Senate on the Foreign Relations comittee. He's not going to drive a wedge between us and our allies. He stands a much better chance of doing the delicate balancing act of attacking the terrorists without pissing the entire region off.

These are all just my own thoughts. If you really want to learn about Kerry, don't wait for TV to tell you about him. They won't. Go to his webpage and find out from the horse's mouth.

a major portion of the tax bill was the reduction on dividends and capital gains. people who make minimum wage up through highest income levels benefits from that - if they are investing, which the vast majority of americans do. i will do some digging for the accurate number, but it is in the ballpark of 93% of americans curently have an equities, or mutual funds that hold equities. that means that 93% of americans benefit from one aspect of the tax reductions. the standard argument against that is that the "wealthy" get more benefit in terms of dollars. well, yeah - that only makes sense, and i don't see a problem with that. it is fair because everyone is taxed on their investments at the same percentage. unless of course you stop to remember that AMT (alternative minimum tax) still applies, which means that if you have too many deductions and make over a certain dollar figure you have to pay whichever is higher - AMT or your standard tax rate. those in the lower income brackets rarely get nailed with AMT issues - so again, how have the "wealthy" gotten one over on the rest of the country?

I don't think many people getting minimum wage have a 401K.

If you seriously believe that the tax cut was fair, you should check out Perfectly Legal, by David Cay Johnston. I have it on good authority that it is accurate - my dad is quoted in several places.

so again, how have the "wealthy" gotten one over on the rest of the country?
Political influence, accountants and lawyers. :)

"...However, because of shelters that allow them to understate most of their income, they pay little more on average than most Americans on the dollar. This is regressive, and unquestionably favors the superrich... "
that comes from amazon's review of the book HM. i agree that many of the tax shelters just plain suck the "progressive" tax system really is regressive in nature and hurts the very people who fight to protect it - the middle class. you may remember, i am a proponent of a true flat tax.

as a quick note though - i didn't say all aspects of the tax laws were fair, the one i addressed is one i hear a lot and one that i know something of.

um, what? i mean specifically what about a tax reduction on capital gains and dividends is unfairly beneficial to the "wealthy"?

A true flat tax is in effect regressive. Taking 15% of minimum wage is much more of a burden than taking 15% of $500,000.

And the superwealthy have the vast majority of their income in capital gains and dividends, while the poor are lucky to have a minimal retirement account set up, the taxes on which are deferred until retirement, anyway.

taking a higher percentage of someone's pay just because they make more $$$ is the very definition of unfair. you may argue that you think it is the right thing to do, but you cannot argue that it is fair.

people have more money than you think. i was shocked when i started in the market to find out who had money, and how much.

so fine how about we start with anybody over $25,000 earned income in a single year is subject to a 15% flat tax? no loopholes.

that is $3750 our of the $25K guy's pocket and $75000 out of the $500K guys pocket. fair enough for you?

Fair, no. Just, yes.