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'

[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]

...