Why Kerry?
 

i know most of the folks that frequent here have an "anybody but bush" approach to the upcoming election, but i'm really trying to figure out those who support kerry/edwards.

1) for anyone on here who genuinely supports the dem ticket - why? what attributes do kerry/edwards have that make you believe they are the way to go?

2) looking around at the other available choices, why did kerry get the nod over the other options? i understand that hilary is waiting til '08, but wasn't there someone else that would have been able to draw large scale support?

From what I remember none of them stood out in the slightest and Dean was far too left to ever succeed.

(slang zips up his flame resistant suit and steps away from Lookout)

well, if people want to flame me, that's ok - i'm a big boy. but these are sincere questions, not a pro-bush commercial. i'm just curious to see what positive things people find in kerry, other than the obvious - he's not bush.

Well I can honeslty say as someone that's followed this probably closer than most americans there is so little I know about kerry's policies it's not funny. Beyond some silly rubbish about protecting jobs from outsourcing. I looked up some of his economic policies at some point, his taxation policy seemed fairly good.

All kidding aside, the only thing he has going for him is that he isn't Bush.

You see people all over the news telling his story and promoting his "policies" because he is a boring liberal and connot generally keep people awake long enough to promote himself. As much as I dislike Clinton politically, he can speak well and knows how to generate enthusiasm.

Kerry's best attirbutes are that he is elligible to be president, has huge financial backing, and he isn't Bush.

Their names are not "George W. Bush" and "Dick Cheney."

Hillary is not running. Hillary will not be running. Hillary is fine where she is. And why would Hillary mount a primary challenge against President Kerry in 2008?

Dean had strong grassroots support (mainly because it was nice to see a Democrat say something FORCEFULLY for a change), but his machine wasn't as organized as Kerry's in the early primaries, and the ridiculously overblown coverage of the "YEAAAAAAH!" made him look silly at a critical time. Gephardt's like Pat Paulsen on lithium; he always runs, but no one knows why. Clark was basically mini-Dean; blog-level support that faded when the bigger wallets came out to play. Lieberman was a laughingstock with no chance from day one. The others basically ran because they could, and to try and get miniscule coverage for their favorite issues.

Dean was hardly "far left" if you look at his track record, though I'll grant that being vocally anti-war at a time when his primary opponents were eagerly handing war authority over to Dubya made him look like a flaming liberal.

Well that's the most important criterion to be a presidential candidate these days.

I thought Campaign Finance Reform "fixed" that?

Take the money out of politics.....that is what was said anyway.

Bring back the power to the people.


LMAO at the very though that people actually believed that nonsense.

You wild eyed dreamer, you! You don't really believe that, do you? The one way to achieve financial reform and give the power back to the people is to ban all TV advertizing in political elections. Candidates wouldn't be forced to shell out the big bucks for media blitzes, and the candidates would have to convey their message in a more thoughtful manner than the 30 second sound bite.

And, sorry, I like Kerry because he doesn't appear to be as insane as Bush. Its a lousey choice, but its the only one we've got. :yelsick:

ok, mari - well at least that is a reason. thank you. but does he stand for anything that you find favorable?

ok, like i said - any reason other than ABB ?

i think the reason hilary isn't running this time is that while the dems were gearing up the primaries, bush still had highly favorable numbers. you don't risk a bright star like hilary if there is a strong chance of losing. assuming for a moment that kerry loses, in '08 who does the gop really have to offer up? i've even wondered if the clinton supporters really even want kerry to win?

"Why Kerry" is a good question indeed ...

It's always amusing to see right-wing media types scare their base with Hillary Clinton. They invested so much in vilifying the Clinton name that they don't want to face an election without a Clinton operating behind the scenes at least.

Now of course I'm relying on primarily "right" news sources, but isn't he taking credit for the choice of Edwards?

Who? Kerry?

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.

what is more fair than taking the same % of everyone's pay? certainly not a sliding scale.



i just reread the last few posts and cringed - i hope radar doesn't pop into this.

I always thought VAT/GST flat taxes were much fairer, tax people on what they buy, not what they earn, much harder to dodge as well.

So poor people actually have lots of money?
Well, first I'd remove that sudden $3750 step at $25K, and say that the first $25000 is tax free. Otherwise, if you were getting $24900 and got a $100 raise, you'd actually lose $3650, which is silly. Second, I'd put a few more gradations in there, to reflect the qualitative differences between having enough, being comfortable, being wealthy, and being superwealthy.

I'll go with you on the no loopholes, though, for sure.

that is the problem, if you say that someone at the bottom doesn't pay taxes because they are at the bottom, then the guy who made $1 too much feels like he is getting screwed. it is much more fair to say that everyone pays 7%, no loopholes, no breaks.


on the surface i do like the sales tax method, but in order for it to work you have to tax at a high enough rate that the lower income folks would choke on it, while the higher income folks just wouldn't buy anything.

Australia uses a mixed system of both, it seems fairly effective.

No, the person who makes $1.00 too much pays $0.15 in taxes. If he feels screwed by that, the problem is with him, not the tax system.

ok, i see what you are saying now. my bad. the first 25K tax free, x% on everything above that - across the board. i think that is fair.

it'll never happen though. the cpa's, attorneys, and everyone else involved would see their future drying up and would campaign hard. first thing they'd do is get ahold of the unions and tell them -"this screws blue collar america" then they'd rally the pols and tell them, "this screws the middle class" *hands a check with 000000's on it* joe public says "hey, i'm getting screwed by those rich guys that want to get out of paying their fair share" and everyone votes against it. for in america the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

Actually, with the exception of "no loopholes", I described the current tax system (a few more gradations). It was sort of a joke. :)

edit - But you're right, the "no loopholes" would anger the CPA lobbies.
edit again - and so would the charity lobbies.

In theory, they are very fair. Problem is, they supress consumption and consumption is what makes the engine hum. Another problem is that tax revenue becomes very difficult to predict since the tax can be easily avoided by not consuming.

The US uses both income and consumption tax (sales tax) but the sales tax goes to the state while the income tax goes mostly to the fed. The state of residence also collects between 0% (FL has no state income tax) and 10% (District of Columbia is at or close to 10%) of income for its use.

The US tax system is the biggest Fing mess - the tax code is unreadable and no one has an incentive to fix it.