If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

This is for the Anti-Administration posters only, Please.
I’m asking for genuine, serious discussion, Please.
No one-liners or cheap shots, Please.
<ul type="square"> ****************************************[/list]Republicans keep complaining about Democrats not offering “Plans.” They say Dems only want to bitch and moan. Truth be told, I don’t see answers coming from many Dems - just questions and complaints.

I would like to hear thoughts about how people who are dissatisfied with the GWB administration think things would be going today if Senator Kerry had been elected.

Iraq and “The War on Terror,” are not the only topics I’d like to hear about. Social Security, Medicare, Education, Border Security, Bankruptcy law, Immigration - it’s all open.

Yes, the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans. Assume Kerry would have used the Bully Pulpit and all the powers of negotiation he could muster to get his agenda satisfied. I’d rather not hear “But the Republicans wouldn’t let it pass.”

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

I am against the GWB administration, but I would also be against the Kerry admin. Since you want to talk about Kerry I'm goingto drop out of the thread, just wanted to let you know where I stand since I know you love my posts so much.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

If Kerry would have been elected, we:

- Wouldn't have wasted millions of dollars touting a failed Social Security Plan
- Wouldn't have Mike Brown as head of FEMA
- Would have put together a more fiscally sound budget. I think we'd still be running a deficit, but I think it would be less (assuming a reversal of the Bush tax cuts from his first term)
- Would be closer to finding out what happened to $8 billion in US taxpayer dollars that disappeared into the IRAQ blackhole.
- Would have made attempts to kill NCLB, the "Clear skies" and "healthy forests" initiatives.
- We would be allies/friends with a democratically elected government in Venezuela

I think there is a lot more, but those are some of the more obvious ones.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

I believe he wants more specific answers, like how would you do all those things, we have heard those talking points before, but we would like to hear the dems plan of action.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

Well, the first answer has to be that we would have un-done a lot of the stupid [censored] Bush has done. Roll back tax cuts on the top 1%, install competent and professional managers for government agencies, and generally treat governing as management rather than campaigning. (Joe Klein had an excellent article about how the fundamental flaw in Bush's administration has been to handle absolutely everything as a political issue rather than a substantive one).

The GOP criticism has been that this is the extent of Democratic ideas, that we're just saying "Bush is bad," and not offering new ways to move the country forward.

Here are four big ideas that the Democrats would move on if we had the power to do so:

-A new Apollo program to develop alternative energy sources and achieve energy independence. This country had the brains and technology to build nuclear bombs in three years before computers were invented. We put a man on the moon ten years after we set our minds to it. Surely we can come up with a solar panel that gets &gt;50% efficiency and a cheap car that gets 40 mpg.

-Basic health care for everyone at a reasonable price. America has the most expensive health care system in the world, which results in very good care for people with a lot of money, and very poor care for nearly 25% of the country. There needs to be an internal debate about how to best to implement this system (I'm partial to a plan that calls for "Medicare for everyone," along with steps to reduce the cost of care by training more doctors and closing a lot of loopholes for the pharma industry), but it's pretty clear that our current system is both inefficient and unfair, and America can do better.

-Pension reform. There is a tidal wave of pension defaults coming. Companies see that their pensions are underfunded, and recognize that they can declare bankruptcy and foist those responsibilities onto the government. The corporations and their big investors make out well, while the small investors and pensioners get screwed. That's just not fair. If Kerry were president, we'd have had corporate bankruptcy reform before we had the personal bankruptcy "reform" that passed recently.

-Make it so everyone who can get accepted into a college can afford it. For a long time, state schools offered a very good education at a very reasonable price. My mother always talks about how, when she was in college, her father sold a cow from his farm once a year to pay her tuition. It's not like that anymore. Budget cuts at the state level have forced state schools to raise their tuition, making it basically unaffordable to a lot of people who could otherwise get educated and join the middle class.

Ultimately, I think ideas like these will coalesce into a Democratic platform in late 2006, similar to the GOP's 1994 Contract with America. Everyone in the party realizes we need to project a positive vision of America in order to start winning elections, and there's no lack of good ideas out there.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

And democrats say republicans are running up a debt, all those programs you mentioned cost money, some of them massive amounts. I take it you think rolling back the tax cuts will fund that, but accoring to economics it wont... but at least you have some ideas...soo nice post.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

Another one: Fair trade. I'm not a protectionist. I know that trading with other countries is generally beneficial to both countries, on average. But it would be foolish to ignore that the globalization of trade pushes all countries into a race to the bottom for labor and environmental standards. Whichever country is willing to accept the most pollution and lowest wages can offer the lowest price, so they get the jobs. This causes permanent environmental degradation, locks workers in developing countries in poverty, and causes job losses here in the US. America can take a lead in addressing these problems by requiring that our trading partners conform to certain environmental and labor standards.

Plus our agricultural subsidies are a huge waste of money ($100 billion per year) that simultaneously cause misuse of land in the US, and screw over farmers in the developing world. The subsidies (which mostly go to giant agribusiness corporations) lower US food prices, making it uneconomical for farmers outside the country to export their excess food and create capital in those countries.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
but accoring to economics it wont...

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to the kids' table. The grownups are talking.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

"And democrats say republicans are running up a debt, all those programs you mentioned cost money, some of them massive amounts. I take it you think rolling back the tax cuts will fund that, but accoring to economics it wont... but at least you have some ideas...soo nice post."



You can not simply dismiss the well crafted post above by just saying it would cost money. Sure it would, and we probably would be running in the red, but there is one important thing that these liberal policies has going for them.

the money we spend now is an investment in the future.

Improved energy efficiency is a MUST, if you look at the headlines many otherwise successful companies are hurting because of increased fuel costs. A substantial investment in clean energy now could save a lot of money down the the road. With healthcare and education spending money now will also pay dividents in the future.

With a war and tax cuts, the money sort of vanishes. With tax cuts less so, but the point still stands. When the government spends massive amounts of money on borrowed credit with no significant returns we are going to be hurting in the future.

Lets just face it: a war is -EV and that social spending is +EV.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plus our agricultural subsidies are a huge waste of money ($100 billion per year) that simultaneously cause misuse of land in the US, and screw over farmers in the developing world. The subsidies (which mostly go to giant agribusiness corporations) lower US food prices, making it uneconomical for farmers outside the country to export their excess food and create capital in those countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not an area in which Bush is showing a lot of leadership?

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

He is, and good for him. I hope he can get the rest of his party to accept the cuts.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

for starters, a better energy program.

I would like to see massive public funding into improving the renewable technologies we have right now. That's how all the other advancements mentioned (space program/nuke bomb) happened - not private industry making a toy they can build obselance into right off the bat and milk it's patents for 50 years -

Once you do that, so many other things start improving - For example - respritory diseases are higher around coal plants and in the coal industry - that's increased health costs, many of which are on the public dole cause they're poor - instead if paying big ass health care costs to make them healthy, how about we just don't make them sick?

And I'm still pissed that a party that calls itself "pro-life" rolled back restrictions on mercury emissions from those plants to the point where Doctors have to advise pregnant women not to eat fish for fear of mercury in the fish harming the fetus.

This administration has no foresight beyond the next quartly stock report.

If you told the world that in 2050 the oil will run out and we knew it for a FACT, the Democrats would say "whoa - we have to find new Technologies NOW, put restrictions on consumption, and focus all of science on finding cheap renewable energy sources for the WORLD, not just the countries with lots of money who can afford licensing fees, patent issues, intellectual property rights, etc, etc...

The Republicans would say "now how much money can we get out of the American people - we only have 50 years left - so let's make some profit."

That's what they're doing right now, in fact -

In short - in any circumstance where Big Business would do something that would be detrimental to the American People but good for business, I think Kerry would be standing and holding the line whereas Republicans will stretch out their hand, take the donation, and open the door for corporate rape of the majority of Americans.

RB

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
for starters, a better energy program.

I would like to see massive public funding into improving the renewable technologies we have right now. That's how all the other advancements mentioned (space program/nuke bomb) happened - not private industry making a toy they can build obselance into right off the bat and milk it's patents for 50 years -

Once you do that, so many other things start improving - For example - respritory diseases are higher around coal plants and in the coal industry - that's increased health costs, many of which are on the public dole cause they're poor - instead if paying big ass health care costs to make them healthy, how about we just don't make them sick?

And I'm still pissed that a party that calls itself "pro-life" rolled back restrictions on mercury emissions from those plants to the point where Doctors have to advise pregnant women not to eat fish for fear of mercury in the fish harming the fetus.

This administration has no foresight beyond the next quartly stock report.

If you told the world that in 2050 the oil will run out and we knew it for a FACT, the Democrats would say "whoa - we have to find new Technologies NOW, put restrictions on consumption, and focus all of science on finding cheap renewable energy sources for the WORLD, not just the countries with lots of money who can afford licensing fees, patent issues, intellectual property rights, etc, etc...

The Republicans would say "now how much money can we get out of the American people - we only have 50 years left - so let's make some profit."

That's what they're doing right now, in fact -

In short - in any circumstance where Big Business would do something that would be detrimental to the American People but good for business, I think Kerry would be standing and holding the line whereas Republicans will stretch out their hand, take the donation, and open the door for corporate rape of the majority of Americans.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

And to think people scoff at me for believing in God...

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
-A new Apollo program to develop alternative energy sources and achieve energy independence. This country had the brains and technology to build nuclear bombs in three years before computers were invented. We put a man on the moon ten years after we set our minds to it. Surely we can come up with a solar panel that gets &gt;50% efficiency....

[/ QUOTE ]

Or instead of spending untold billions of dollars on a boondoggle, we could just build more nuclear plants.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

This thread shows the flaw in logic of many here. It is easy to pick apart every little thing about the incumbant administration. It is not so easy to have a better plan of action, indeed those mentioned so far in this thread make me happy they are not in office. The problems with Bush are minor compared to what we would have with Kerry.

Besides any administration would be weak without the boy-genius working for them:

http://www.believersagainstbush.org/images/rove.jpg [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

If you want to take the aggregate functions as an example, consumer spending is about 2/3 of GDP, cutting back tax cuts does create a trickle down or multiplier effect. It must be a miracle to you that even with Bush's tax cuts they government is generating more money in tax revenue...funny how that works.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

The recent increase in revenues happened because a business tax break expired at the end of 2004.

Not even Republicans believe tax cuts increase revenue. Here's an article by one of your heroes, Stephen Moore, written in 2003, about how Bush's tax cuts will lower revenue and force the government to stop spending so much. In retrospect it seems he was right about the first part but hilariously wrong about the second part.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

Recent increase in revenue, this has been going on longer than since 2004. Also read some stuff on the new soon to be Fed Chairmen, see what he thinks of this issue as well.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Not even Republicans believe tax cuts increase revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one with half a brain cares if they increase revenue. That's never the reason for lowering taxes. It's whether or not they are good for the economy and spur investment and create jobs. And guess what? They do. That's practically irrefutable. Revenue?? That's a priority? You've gotta be joking.

natedogg

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

If John Kerry had been elected we'd...

still have an a..hole for president.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

You talk about investment and creating jobs, thats creating revenue. Obviously the reason for the tax cuts isn't to increase revenue, but by giving people more money it increases consumption...etc, you know the story.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

Well, you guys can jerk each other off repeating what you think you learned on Fox News, but the vast majority of mainstream economists think Bush has done a bad job managing the economy. Link.

You guys are contradicting yourselves anyways. First I give a series of ideas that would make the country better. Fish tells me it'll cost too much and that rolling back the tax cuts won't make any money. I point out the tax cuts aren't generating revenue, and you guys come back and say government shouldn't be concerned with revenue. See the contradiction? Deficits either matter or they don't.

Anyway, is that the only criticism you can give? You'd love to have energy independence, but you don't want to spend the $100 billion it would cost? And they say Democrats don't have ideas...

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It must be a miracle to you that even with Bush's tax cuts they government is generating more money in tax revenue...

[/ QUOTE ]

From the OMB at whitehouse.gov OMB LINK

Total tax reciepts dropped from just over 2 TRILLION in 2000 (after 1999) to 1.8 Trillion in 2004. Individual tax receipts are down from just over 1 trillion to 808 billion, or a nearly 20% drop over the last four years. Corporate income taxes are down from 207 billion to 190 billion. Total reciepts for 2005 are expected to finally exceed reciepts in 2000, but only because the increased receipts in Social Security taxes. Personal income tax reciepts are estimated to once again exceed 2000's level in 2007, ignoring inflation over those 7 years.

FUNNY, I dont see any increase in tax revenues....

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

They already know what they want to believe. Don't confuse them with the facts.

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

To those (few) of you who offered your thoughts, Thank You. Without being specific, some of you made your case, IMO, in a calm, sane manner. That's what I'd hoped to generate. No screaming or name-calling. I honestly wanted to hear honesty.

I'm disappointed there wasn't more "meat." Oh, well, maybe another time.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: If John Kerry had been elected we\'d...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You'd love to have energy independence, but you don't want to spend the $100 billion it would cost? And they say Democrats don't have ideas...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure their answer is more correctly defined as "that shouldn't be the government project, it should be a business venture"

Whether that would make sense is a question I'll leave open