John Kerry You're Busted

[adios]

Kerry doesn't care about the budget deficit. He obviously intends to expand social programs which will lead to higher taxes across the board eventually. Expanding social programs solidifies and expands the Democratic party base as they foster a greater dependency on government. This is in direct contrat to president Bush's idea of an "ownership society" that he talked about in his acceptance speech. It's one of the reason he's so hated by the left ie there's a big idealogical difference in what Bush see's as governments role and what the left sees as government's role in entitlement spending. This statement by Kerry is so revealing:

At a campaign stop in West Virginia, Mr. Kerry fired back, saying the president's "rush to war" cost the United States $200 billion that could have been used for domestic spending initiatives he favors.

Bush mocks a new Kerry 'U-turn' (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040907-122640-4199r.htm)

[jokerswild]

You must be a log cabin Republican. Your inane attempts to belittle a true war hero get weaker and weaker.

[andyfox]

Isn't Bush's proposed "simplification" of the tax code just a euphemism for either a flatter tax or some kind of VAT or consumption tax which will lower the marginal rates for his core supporters?

I don't think Bush's ideology is why he's so hated (if indeed he is) by the left. I think its stems from two things: the 2000 election and the war in Iraq.

[Zeno]

I think I saw part of this speech on C-SPAN-2. I listened for about 10 minutes to see if Kerry would say anything new, intelligent, or worthwhile. Nada.

Not that I expected much to begin with. But in general, I agree with your comment. Kerry is the same lame twaddle head democrat that I have seen for so many years. He is almost as pathetic as old Hubert Humphrey. And that is high praise indeed. Walter Mondale and Michael Du-cock-us were the same type of characters. All are maudlin do- gooders that are out to solve every ‘problem’ (or ‘create a problem’ that will then need to be solved by some interfering bureaucratic action) with the tossing out of money through some ill-conceived government program or hand out or regulation and etc. ad infinitium.

-Zeno

[MaxPower]

The notion that Republicans are for small government is laughable. What they say they believe and what they do are entirely different.

Bush wants you to vote for him because of the things he professes to believe in, not because of what he has done in his first term.

[MMMMMM]

^

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Bush's proposed "simplification" of the tax code just a euphemism for either a flatter tax or some kind of VAT or consumption tax which will lower the marginal rates for his core supporters?

[/ QUOTE ]

No his "ownership society" is bascially about tax deffered accounts as a replacement and/or supplement for government funding of social security and medicare. The "tax simplification" is orthogonal to the "ownership society." Given Kerry's support by big money special interest groups I think you better face the fact that Kerry has a lot of rich supporters.

Nonetheless Kerry doesn't care at all about the budget deficit. His rhetoric is total bull.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Bush's ideology is why he's so hated (if indeed he is) by the left. I think its stems from two things: the 2000 election and the war in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm adding one more to the list.

[andyfox]

Of course Kerry has a lot of rich supporters. But he's vowed to rescind the rate reduction on the highest income earners. I'll bet any amount you want that Bush's simplification involves a reduction in the highest marginal rate.

Cocnern about the budget deficits is 100% political, I agree. The Republicans bitch and moan about it when the Democrats are in control and vice versa.

But concern about the "complicated mess" of the income tax is also about 95% political. As is talk of an "ownership society."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that Republicans are for small government is laughable. What they say they believe and what they do are entirely different.

Bush wants you to vote for him because of the things he professes to believe in, not because of what he has done in his first term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another incredibly dumb comment on the "ownership society" in particular and about Bush in general. It's not about shrinking government.

Here's an article on it by Alan Murray who IMO is a middle of the road guy politically. Doubt if you'll take the time to read it but I'll post it anyway.

POLITICAL CAPITAL
By ALAN MURRAY

Alan Murray is Washington bureau chief for CNBC, and co-host of Capital Report, which airs at 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Bush Speech Shows
U.S. Conservatism
Has a New Playbook
September 7, 2004; Page A4

I spent Thursday evening on the floor of the Republican convention, and I can report with confidence that the delegates didn't once break into a chant of "OWN-ER-SHIP." They were happy, of course. They would have been happy if George W. Bush had read from the phone book. But when he started discussing his "ownership society," some looked as if they thought he was reading from the phone book.

Still, despite dazed delegates and dissing pundits, the first half of President Bush's speech was probably the most enduring part. It may not help Mr. Bush win the election of 2004, which, it is now clear, is going to be relentlessly focused on national security. But the ideas mark an important effort to redefine conservatism in this country. And whether President Bush wins re-election or not, they signal a new era in national politics.

Former congressman Jack Kemp, who was sitting proudly in the vice president's box on Thursday night, symbolizes the old era. He convinced the Republican Party in 1978 to embrace across-the-board tax cuts. In every national election over the subsequent quarter-century, the party proudly waved the tax-cut banner. Candidates didn't need to think long or hard about what economic-policy proposals to put at the center of their campaigns. The answer was always the same: cut taxes.

But those days are over. Not for decades will a Republican candidate be able to run on an agenda of broad-based tax cuts. In the short term, budget deficits make that position untenable. In the longer term, the retirement of the baby boomers will do the same.

The fight for the next half-century will be over how to prevent taxes and spending from being swollen to European dimensions by government-retirement programs. And politically, that puts conservatives back to where they were before quarterback Kemp abandoned the football field three decades ago -- playing defense.

President Bush's speech offered a rough start at giving conservatives a new offense. "Government," he argued, "should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives." The new goal is no longer to make government smaller. Rather, the goal is to change the nature of government so it empowers citizens, provides them more choices and gives them more control over their finances and their lives.

This is a very big idea -- even if it sounded like a laundry list of policy retreads. At its most ambitious, it would be a redefinition of capitalism that would, as the president said, "extend the frontiers of freedom."

The president packaged his proposals as a response to a changing global economy. Unlike his opponents, he didn't decry developments like "outsourcing" -- an inevitable, and even beneficial, component of free and open trade. Instead, he proposed retooling government to give individuals more flexibility to adapt to, and benefit from, the changes that a global economy inevitably brings.

"This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family and have a rewarding career," he said. "Many of our most fundamental systems -- the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training -- were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared, and thus truly free to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams."

The devil -- or, more accurately, an entire ring of hell -- is in the details. And the president offered precious few details. He wants Americans to have a "nest egg you can call your own" as part of a revised Social Security system. But where is the money going to come from to finance this change and fix a broken system? Massive borrowing? An increase in the retirement age? A cut in benefits?

The president also called for tax overhaul, emphasizing changes that will cause the government to lose revenue -- such as tax breaks for savings and investment -- while avoiding any mention of measures that would raise revenue. Would he, for instance, try to eliminate the state- and local-tax deduction -- a top target of conservative reformers because it favors high-tax states?

Then there are the changes in the health-care system. "In an ownership society," the president said, "more people will own their own health-care plans." That signals a gradual shift to a system in which you, rather than your employer or the government, will make key decisions about your health coverage. But who will pay, and how much?

Republicans have a long way to go before this notion of an "ownership society" becomes a crowd-pleaser like tax cuts. But American political conservatism needs an overhaul. And this is a step in the right direction.

[adios]

...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
As is talk of an "ownership society."

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally wrong Andy. It's called taking a big political risk. FWIW you won't find any Congressman beating the drums for Social Security reform in the last 10 years that has stuck around for any length of time in Congress (I can't remember any beating the drum at all but maybe someone did and didn't get re-elected). Remember Greenspan calling for Social Security reform during Congressional testimony I believe last summer? All kinds of headlines for a day but nobody took the ball and ran with it so to speak. When one discusses changing Social Security in a drastic way, it's called political courage, Social Security is the number one "sacred cow" in Congress. Medicare/medicaid IMO is the number 2 "sacred cow" or close to it. And Bush's "ownership society" addresses that as well.

[adios]

In all fairness Republican congressman don't want to go anywhere near Social Security reform and Medicare/medicaid reform which Bush is starting to put on the table with his "ownership socieity" idea.

[MaxPower]

I was not commenting on the ownership society, but on the notion that the Democrats are for big and more powerfull government and that Republicans are for smaller government that stays out of your business.

Sorry to dissapoint you , but I did read the article. Its a very nice concept, but as the author points out the President did not give any details as to how all this is going to work. It is simply ideology.

I suppose you just have to have faith that whatever actions Bush takes will be in service of this goal and will accomplish the goal. I am sceptical.

[WillMagic]

And W does care about the budget deficit?

In his four years of office, the budget has gone from a reasonably large surplus to a massive deficit. And in the midst of this massive deficit, W proposed his 15 billion dollar Mars plan and his 2 billion dollar program for the promotion of marriage. Bush isn't really a free-trader either - remember those steel tariffs?

Now, I consider myself a Republican, and I'm not a Bush hater. But if you are trying to disparage Kerry by saying that he is a big government man and Bush isn't, then you are barking up the wrong tree - both are big government men.

Will

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not commenting on the ownership society, but on the notion that the Democrats are for big and more powerfull government and that Republicans are for smaller government that stays out of your business

[/ QUOTE ]

And what does have to do with Kerry's pandering about the budget deficit? That almost looks like a gratuitus shot to distract from Kerry's attempts to deceive the public.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to dissapoint you , but I did read the article. Its a very nice concept, but as the author points out the President did not give any details as to how all this is going to work. It is simply ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise? Kerry's supporting the status quo, a status quo that won't work, a status quo that needs reform. Kerry doesn't have the political will or the political courage to tackle that issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you just have to have faith that whatever actions Bush takes will be in service of this goal and will accomplish the goal. I am sceptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't you could actually try formulating your own ideas and seeing how they mesh with what the pols want to do. I agree a lot more details need to be forthcoming but at least Bush has the guts to put in the table. BTW Social Security reform along the lines of what Bush is proposing will benifit younger folks IMO that don't have a long history of being in the work force.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not commenting on the ownership society, but on the notion that the Democrats are for big and more powerfull government and that Republicans are for smaller government that stays out of your business

[/ QUOTE ]

And what does have to do with Kerry's pandering about the budget deficit? That almost looks like a gratuitus shot to distract from Kerry's attempts to deceive the public.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to dissapoint you , but I did read the article. Its a very nice concept, but as the author points out the President did not give any details as to how all this is going to work. It is simply ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise? Kerry's supporting the status quo, a status quo that won't work, a status quo that needs reform. Kerry doesn't have the political will or the political courage to tackle that issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you just have to have faith that whatever actions Bush takes will be in service of this goal and will accomplish the goal. I am sceptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't you could actually try formulating your own ideas and seeing how they mesh with what the pols want to do. I agree a lot more details need to be forthcoming but at least Bush has the guts to put it on the table. BTW Social Security reform along the lines of what Bush is proposing will benifit younger folks IMO that don't have a long history of being in the work force.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not commenting on the ownership society, but on the notion that the Democrats are for big and more powerfull government and that Republicans are for smaller government that stays out of your business

[/ QUOTE ]

And what does have to do with Kerry's pandering about the budget deficit? That almost looks like a gratuitus shot to distract from Kerry's attempts to deceive the public.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to dissapoint you , but I did read the article. Its a very nice concept, but as the author points out the President did not give any details as to how all this is going to work. It is simply ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise? Kerry's supporting the status quo, a status quo that won't work, a status quo that needs reform. Kerry doesn't have the political will or the political courage to tackle that issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you just have to have faith that whatever actions Bush takes will be in service of this goal and will accomplish the goal. I am sceptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't you could actually try formulating your own ideas and seeing how they mesh with what the pols want to do. I agree a lot more details need to be forthcoming but at least Bush has the guts to put it on the table. BTW Social Security reform along the lines of what Bush is proposing will benifit younger folks IMO that don't have a long history of being in the work force.

[andyfox]

No political risk whatsoever. It's Bush's last campaign and Cheney's too. I'm not denying, desipte my natural curmudegeonly distrust of all politicians, that there are cores of true belief in Bush's compassionate conservatism and Kerry's liberalism; but this is an election and they want to be elected. If there are unpalatable details in either's proposals, they'll endeavor to hide or deny them. Let's see exactl what the ownership society entails.

[andyfox]

"Not for decades will a Republican candidate be able to run on an agenda of broad-based tax cuts."

Bull. Hogwash. Poppycock. That's EXACTLY what Bush is running on now. He claims that Kerry is running on a tax-increase program. The biggest cheer during his acceptance speech was when he said he wanted to make the tax cuts permanent. He said right at the outset his philosophy entails limiting government and cutting back taxes. He called Kerry a tax-and-spend guy. It's his core issue. And it will always be the Republican candidate's core issue when the Democratic opponent is a liberal.

[andyfox]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

I think Bush means it when he talks about an "ownership society."

Contrary to many politicians, Bush actually does believe in some things.

[adios]

...........

[andyfox]

I'm with the comedian who said the difference between the two parties is that the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas and the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas. (Normally, I would take credit for the line myself, but I've been busted here before.)

[Zeno]

You are correct to castigate both parties for their lackluster way of trying to address large economic issues (or not address them at all) that need to be dealt with. Neither party (as everyone sort of agreed later on in this thread) has shown much courage or political will to tackle these issues of importance.

It is always more fun (at least for me) to jab at the democrats. A main reason being that I have heard this same tired rhetoric for so long that I simply gag at it now. I honestly cannot listen to Kerry speak. He is revolting to me.

I saw the ‘third party’ debate between Michael Badnarik (libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) on C-Span, I think. About 50 people were in the audience. These two also hee-hawed about some things or gave pat answers etc but were at least a little more forthcoming on specifics or issues.

This country does need a third or fourth party if for no other reason than to revitalize the morbid two parties that we now have and that are more alike than different, with both having more bad ideas than good. This is one reason that I like the fact that Ralph Nader is running for president.

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

Zeno,

Im still waiting for the Libertarian party to make a big move. I know they have been fairly successful in local and to some degree state government. As I see it, the Libertarian party is probably the closest in its ideology to what the average American actually believes. As I see it the problem with Libertarianism is this:

1) They emphasize the drug legalization plank waaaaaay too much. Neal Boortz has a great article on this somewhere in his townhall.com archive. I tend to agree with this.

2) They are still too "ideologically pure". By this I mean that they are hellbent for leather on imposing very piece of their philosophy. They dont quite get the fact that it is nearly impossible to accomplish anything in politics these days with out some sort of concession

3) They dont advertise enough. Im not talking about political ads for their Presidential candidate (excuse me while I giggle, the the guy they nominated is pretty bland and is not going to garner them any attention). I think they could do themselves a great service by running ads along the lines of "Do you believe in X,Y,Z? Tired of the same old tired politics? Then check out this resource for information on why Libertarianism is right for you."

Even all this might still not be enough. But I know I cant vote for Libertarian candidate (should I be so inclined) until they can present viable candidate.