I was wondering about the Kerry versus Bush election. What differences would Kerry make if elected president as opposed to Bush? Some people that I have talked to think that there would be little difference whereas others think that it would be a major difference. What do you think?
I think he would go and attack other countries for questionable reasons.... Otherwise I have no idea, but that's enough for me.
Kerry will have far more maneuverablility than Bush, because the many mistakes made over the last 4 years can be laid at the last administration's doorstep. A change of leadership now is most beneficially a face-saving and damage-control measure for the USA. From this point onward, how the Kerry administration behaves will depend on what the American public decides is a wiser course, and what the American public does to be heard more loudly by leadership than special interest groups, which nearly exclusively have the ear of both major parties. The greatest problems America faces now, including physical and economic insecurity, are occuring not because of particular Presidencies (although the last one put foreign policy in a nosedive), but because Americans have been apathetically flirting with the concept of a bloated government running on autopilot. We are discovering through traumatic experience that it doesn't work: It gets dangerous. To echo not a few of our troops, "We didn't sign up for this." When and if American citizens take control of our national destiny, one of the first orders of business will be to fire public servants who have damaged our country's reputation and geoeconomic viability- and then fire any replacements who do the same, while raising up new and better representatives for leading offices. As to righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, Kerry and Edwards are more in alignment with an awakening American public, not less, because they both voted to uphold Bush Administration machinations for unilaterally-incited war in Iraq, but now push for internationalization/de-Americanization of the occupation. I don't personally think that is nearly enough, because they have come out with no exit strategy. Yet, this does fit the confused state of the American public as a whole. This is a worthwhile start, in comparison to continuing the Bushmens' obsession with a deadly desert mirage of empires past. The Kerry platform is a good fit for an American public, just waking up and wondering what the heck is going on out there in the world. We don't need a government with all the answers in some sealed Arc of the Covenant. We need democratically responsive government, and a concerned and informed public. At the very least, it appears a Kerry administration will be more prone to looking out and considering the changing international landscape with less hubris and American exceptionalism. The Kerry administration will at least begin their term less entrenched, and a little more prone to listening to the public; less prone to holding secret meetings of corporate dividers of spoils (and doggedly keeping them secret in defiance of Congress); less prone to continue yammering in embarrassing and inflammatory rhetoric that has been logically and morally rejected by the entire world. The US government obviously does not turn on a dime. But that doesn't mean we should keep our hands off the democratic levers. We can, however, recognize grossly antidemocratic leadership and reject it, even if the immediate alternatives are not ideal, or even vastly different. In any troubled organization, firing the worst-performing from the top down can improve the performance of all. Paying attention matters. As this realization dawns on Americans, the first priority is to try and avoid fatal collisions with the most massive components of reality, by nudging the juggernaut in the minute short-term ways we are provided, while strenuously applying ourselves to forming new and much more coherent public consensus for what sort of future Americans will together build for ourselves.
Kerry might not be so inclined to waste a lot of money and lives on invading a country on flimsy evidence of WMD and terrorists and on the prodding of old oil-mining buddies to get more money. Kerry might be harsher on outsourcing. Work more on the economy and try to improve international relations. Kerry might actually emplace laws for pollution control rather then remove them, he might sign the Kyoto accord forceing American to improve energy efficiency and develop new energy sources other then fossil fuels. Kerry might actually believe in global warming and the large amount of evidence on climate change being a reality, rather then spinning out much propaganda that the earth is OK and we can keep polluting. Of course this is all speculation and the hopes of us who are voting for him, what he will actually do in office is completely unknown.
In addition to what WCF says, Kerry might also stand against the Federal Marriage Amendment but again he's still kind of shaky on the issues. What we can be sure of is that Bush will NOT stand for any of these things and will likely continue pandering to his right wing religious evangelical Christian base, and the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Also, without having to worry about re-election (which isn’t to imply that he was elected in the first place), in his second term he’d probably end up doing these things even more obnoxiously than before.
I agree with this analysis. <applause> Well said. I agree, in fact I don't think most Americans are aware of how much the government has grown, "even though" Republicans were in charge of Congress. You certainly can't chalk it up to inflation! That's why I'm in favor of tax cuts, as every American should be. But they should be accompanied by responsible fiscal spending, and spending needs to be fixed FIRST. Maybe. I certainly hope so, but I also would be concerned about criticism of this hypothetical Kerry administration would be based on ideology and not objective truth. This pendulum-swining business has gotten really out of hand, and there's no question in my mind that Kerry will face even more of this than Bush has, which in turn has been greater than what Clinton faced. Round and round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.... For my part, if Kerry wins (and as I've said, right now I'm a marginal Bush voter), I plan to make every effort not to succomb to partisan, ideological assessments of his administration. He'll get a fair shake from me. My fellow Bush voters... that's another story. But maybe I'm just being a pessimist. I would agree with the rest of your assessment as well, and I thought it was very well put. In fact, that kind of reasoning has a strong influence on me in the coming election. As I mentioned in that other thread, I'm not adverse to sacrificing my Bush vote in favor of the bigger picture/greater good, etc. Nice post.
You favor tax cuts, which in turn would put the US in budget deficits until the year 2040 at least? You do realize that you have put the US in a position of massive tax hikes in the future as a result? Social Security is not going to be touched, military spending is expected to be about $1 trillion by the end of this decade, what can be cut? Nothing, that’s the problem.
Well, that's hardly the entire budget. Actually, in terms of the deficit, the difference between revenue and spending is only about 4% of GDP. I think the Bush tax cut should be rescinded, but I agree that doesn't make it up entirely. The growth in the economy will help somewhat, but we're probably going to have to deal with a tax hike. But I tell you what, if you raise taxes and INCREASE spending, woe be until you if you're an elected official in this country. And right now, that's *exactly* what we're looking at over the next few years, no matter WHO is in the Oval Office. CONgress would spend that money faster than you can say "pork"! What would I do? Freeze health research at present levels, cutting agricultural subsidies (restricting them to small owner-farmed operations and killing the ones going to agri-corps, which lets the little guy stay in the game through price swings and still accomplishes our goal). I would freeze growth in spending at 19% of GDP, instead of the 21% it's currently projected to grow to even with BUSH in office. And I would seek greater attention on spending processes. Let's put a few congresscritters under the harsh light of the public eye and see if we can do something about special interests.
Well, that's hardly the entire budget. Yes numerically that is true, qualitively the opposite is true. Actually, in terms of the deficit, the difference between revenue and spending is only about 4% of GDP. Last I heard it was approaching 5%, almost exceeding the record highs recorded under Bush sr. The budget is now over $500 billion in the hole, and it’s not shrinking. but I agree that doesn't make it up entirely. The growth in the economy will help somewhat, but we're probably going to have to deal with a tax hike. Here’s the fiscal solution according to the OCED: But nope the President wants to make those tax cuts permanent, cognitive? if you raise taxes and INCREASE spending, woe be until you if you're an elected official in this country. And right now, that's *exactly* what we're looking at over the next few years, no matter WHO is in the Oval Office. CONgress would spend that money faster than you can say "pork"! That may well be true, but the question is who is better able to reduce the size of that deficit? So far Kerry looks like the man to do it, and a budget deficit is no idle threat, coupled with America’s truly disastrous trade deficit you are in the whole $ 1trillon. What would I do? Freeze health research at present levels, cutting agricultural subsidies That would cut spending, but not nearly enough to make a significant difference something more has to be done and that is to cut defense spending, and social security reform. And I would seek greater attention on spending processes. Let's put a few congresscritters under the harsh light of the public eye and see if we can do something about special interests. Amen.
Ok, so except for a few specifics (taxes/gay marriage/etc), everyone seems to agree with what needs to be done. So how the hell do you actually get politicians to do it besides paying them?
So how the hell do you actually get politicians to do it besides paying them? Thanks to special interests the only thing you can do is go populist on their asses, but since most people are apathetic nothing will change. We must understand sci is not society, we are the anti-thesis.
"So how the hell do you actually get politicians to do it..?" If you look at the recent record, of the last 5 Administrations or so, it axiomatic that Democratic Presidents pay down deficits, and Republican ones run them up: So you elect a Democrat to promote fiscal conservatism. This is one leading reason why although I still am registered Republican (don't know for how much longer, though), I havent' voted that way in Presidential polls since Reagan's first term.
Perhaps, but it goes to far to suggest that the deficit dropped BECAUSE Clinton was in office. The evidence points towards other factors. (cof) (This would be a good time to PRAISE JESUS that Hilly's healthcare plan didn't pass.) I'd like to take a look at Kerry's spending voting while a Senator. That might be interesting.
Damn one way or the other, who to choose, well anyone but bush seems to be a popular notion, however lately we find that kerry ain't all that great either. Kerry follies: What's a person to do? All things considered, if we are in Iraq for Israel, than I figure we'll be there forever -- with either Bush or Kerry. And even if Kerry eventually puts the UN in there, we are still in Iraq, one way or the other. http://www.unknownnews.net/040709a-kf.html Would we get out of Irag, within months after Kerry's election? well unlikely accordingly to Gurdian article and rumors elsewere; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1257429,00.htm Would Kerry lower the burden of tax? Well accordingly to the pundits on the hill at the moment Kerry intends to raise taxes, wether this to be true or not remains to be seen, however I've read that Kerry did raise taxes on many occasions, and wants to raise taxes at the pump. Higher gas prises is something I'm no looking forward to. http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/031104.html If any of you ever get interested in reading B.Bs here's an interesting one: http://ubb.maui.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002528 Either way I don't think either will affect me none, the jobs are going away, taxes are being raised, the rest of the world still hates our guts, bla,bla,bla. Godless.
This is just idle speculation, but I've been wondering if it might not be productive to change gasoline taxation such that consumers pay one tax and businesses pay another. Part of the problem with the high price of gasoline is that it hurts the economy, because everything we buy has to be shipped around. Cut the gas tax for business and you stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you also encourage consumers to drive more, increasing our oil consumption and impacting the ecology (75% of air pollution comes from automobiles). Separate the two and you might be able to accomplish both goals -- stimulate the economy while reducing emissions and cutting consumption. Of course, this flies in the face of the accepted liberal position that businesses should pay MORE taxes instead of less, which I've always thought was kinda stupid, since businesses just pass the cost along to consumers, but that's what they want. It would be a job and a half for President Kerry to sell that one in East LA.
No shiet I vacationed in South Cal. The gas prices in Califas was very expensive 2.45 was average, at the time I was there. The problem with the idea of taxing business is the consumer cost goes up right along with it, the problem with taxing individuals is that we buy less from those businesses which in turn they increase the product prize anyway. The solution, is abolish the freaking tax all together therefore every one gets a bit more money to spend and businesses production cost keeps down, stimulating the economy. However this is probably a very radical idea, cause government has grown out of porportion. Government needs to cut down some of their programs which is hurting us the most, i.e. welfare comes to mind. Godless.
I think that there are similarities and differences between Bush and Kerry. The similarities are not as great as some say and the differences are not as great as others say. I definitely believe that it is very important for Kerry to defeat Bush in November for the future of America especially for the future of America's foreign relations.
Kerry Update: A Tabula Rasa is definitely needed on the international scene. This president has tarnished the view of the US internationally to the point where the US has become a living joke. America cannot maintain its current position of exceptionalist arrogance because no one is buying it. America is still a country of great untapped wealth, and prosperity but that will be eroded without respect for her institutions. It will undoubtedly take a new president to change the world’s view on the US, and it will take a new position on Iraq and other key issues to bring America back from the brink.
None. he is like Edwards and edwards is a terible senator. He Ignores his job and abstains from voting because his is too buisy campaining. Kerry wouldn't pick some one like that too run with unless he was the same way. BTW, why are Kerry and Edwards always touching each other? Can someone please show me a photo of them not touching?!
He Ignores his job and abstains from voting because his is too buisy campaining. And Bush? Did he not use Air Force One, using tax payer money to go to his fundraising events? How can you blame Edwards or Kerry for campaigning do you expect them to be in the Senate while at the same time trying to get a presidential campaign up and running? I think most Americans understand the simple idea that one cannot be at two places at once. BTW, why are Kerry and Edwards always touching each other? Can someone please show me a photo of them not touching?! Oh well, now they have to lose the election, they are touching oh god! Touching, so gay…Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Is this the depths of the republican party or what?
