Once upon a time, I would have called Kerry’s economic proposals “Republican.” That was before Bush was elected and Republican economics slid from noxious to not sane. So his policies are more like “Republican Retro 1999,” at least if this AP article is accurate:
This was once a popular trick among Republicans who wanted to cut social spending but pretend they weren’t. The scam is pretty simple: every year, the total American population grows. So just in order to spend the same amount per person, federal spending programs have to increase not to account for inflation, but also to account for increasing population. Kerry knows this perfectly well; he’s just stealing an old Republican trick to avoid saying “I plan to cut the social services every needy American recieves.”
- cuts in payments to each disabled person
- less money per person for roads & subways
- less money for each child in child care
- less job training money for each worker
From his explanation of the proposal, it’s unclear whether he would apply this to Medicaid. If it does, his plan would be an assault on health care for the poor.
Nathan has a whole bunch more – go check it out. And while you’re there, be sure to read his recent posts on trade agreements, labor rights and CAFTA – here and here..
This has to be the strangest campaign I’ve ever seen. Every time Kerry announces a position I say to myself, “I can’t possibly vote for this guy.” Every time the Bush admin says something I say to myself, “I gotta vote for Kerry.”
Bush is the best campaigner for Kerry & Kerry is the best campaigner against Kerry.
So remind me, how is Kerry any better than Bush? I mean other than the pace of change to oligarchy or dictatorship is several years slower with Kerry. They both seem to be for policies that accelerate the placing all wealth and power in the hands of the rich at the expense of the other 99% of us.
Repeat after me, Jake:
Must save Roe…
Roe is All…
Must save Roe…
Roe is All…
Just take the blue pill, My Boy. And listen to this copy of Consolidated’s old Friendly Facism disc played backwards. All will reveal itself to you in time.
Ommmmmmmmm…
That’s pretty damned funny. But, really….. this is really for those “must vote Kerry to get Bush out. anybody but Bush” folks. I have been steeling (stealing?) myself to vote for Kerry since December – as he seemed the best of the possible Dem winners. But since he more or less won, every position he states is one of EVIL. By that, I mean diametrically opposed to my views. You (and Kerry) want my vote. I understand that, honest. But you seem to expect my vote. That I can’t understand. What are you giving to those of us on the Left that would justify my giving my vote to this atrocious, less religiously policy driven version of the current EVIL?
Here’s one voter who hasn’t voted major party for anything since ’92 willing to vote for Kerry. And your guy is shoving me away forcefully. Suspending collection of payroll taxes for companies that bring jobs back to the US? Ah, workers pay companies for jobs. WHACK! Cut social spending? WHACK! Will Kerry represent ANYTHING that I believe in? Will Kerry move things to the left or just continue moving right but slower? Why should Kerry be any more attractive to me than Gore was 4 years ago?
Yeah, Bush is far worse than any of us (except perhaps my father) could have imagined. I won’t dispute that. But is Kerry that much better? Seems to me that they’re both for bringing us to the same place. It’s just that while Kerry puts us in the pot & slowly heats the water to boiling, Bush boils the water & then tosses us in.
[the cricket noises are overwhelming, aren’t they ? I sort of expected someone to be Johnny or Jilly-On-The-Spot and acuse Jake of demanding 100% compatability on issues with Kerry.
Maybe someone cut out his brain and put Lieberman’s in there. That would explain a lot.]
I would say to Jake “vote for Bush”. At least he is taking the terrorism threat seriously. I’m not convinced that Kerry will do anything to promote world stability than appeasement, and we can see what that got the Spanish.
I understand Amy’s Roe V. Wade justification for voting Kerry, but most contributors to this forum seem to have a higher opinion of (and trust in) the Supreme Court than our current President. If a woman’s right to choose is constitutionaly sound, why worry?
In a world where Islamofascists want to kill my kids, my wife, my sister, my parents, my friends, me, and all of you…I’ll vote for the cowboy over the hippie every time.
That’s why I’m holding MY nose and voting for Bush.
(And Jake, you know you aren’t voting for Bush anyway…so quit yer whinin. Or vote for that dude in the cheap, rumpled suit. What’s his name? Oh yeah N…
*This post cut short by Dilusional Progressives for Nader 2004*
We at Delusional Progressives for Nader(DNP) would like to apologize to the forum for the pre-emptive editing of Mr. Quadratic’s post. Our campaign does not in anyway condone the infringement of anybody’s right to free speech, but God, that guy was irritating.
Here are this month’s talking points:
1. Bush is an evil, evil little man.
2. Kerry will eat your kids.
3. Nader rocks your momma.
Ralph Nader for President 2004–“He’ll, like, change stuff….yeah”
You know Quad, you almost had me until the “Islamofascists.” Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t listen to anyone after they say “appeasement” and “Islamofascists” in the same post.
It’s not just a right-wing thing, though. I lose interest in leftie posts that mention “Rethuglicans” or “Conservofascists” or whatever the current in term is. So don’t take it personally.
Appeasement doesn’t work unless we’re dealing with an organization that actually requests something. How can we appease someone other than taking requests?
Besides, the appeasement historical analogies are just so annoyingly simplistic. Do you know who was really pissed off by the appeasement in the 1930’s? Hitler. He wanted to recreate World War I with a more favorable outcome for Germany, but here was Chamberlain giving him Czechoslovakia, and the Army wouldn’t just march to war without a reason. Damn it all!
Geeze, Quad are you stupid or just annoying? (In response to “Quit your whining” insult)
Anyway, how you can believe that Bush is taking the terrorism threat seriously when he has spent a couple of years making another Afghanistan in Iraq is beyond me. That’s Afghanistan in terms of lawless nation that becomes a haven for fundamentalist terrorists. And you’re gonna vote for the administration that has apparently never told the truth about anything? Even about issues where they really have nothing to hide? These people are pathological liars. And what about those great friends of the Bush family & financiers of terrorism, the Saud family? Boy, dubya sure showed them what for!
And, BTW, as I’ve said elsewhere on this blog I’m not voting for Nader this year. There’s no point to that. He’s not promoting any sort of party building, so even if he gets 5% (ha!) it won’t do any good for anything except a Nader ’08 campaign.
Are you a Kerry supporter? Because that’s who my comments were aimed at. Did you notice that I wrote, “…this is really for those “must vote Kerry to get Bush out. anybody but Bush” folks.”?” I’m so happy you were able to add so much to this conversation.
I much prefer rational opposing view Quadratic to the bizarre psychotic Quadratic who has been posting lately. Can you let that personality take control of the body again, please?
D’you think Quad knew that my Roe mantra was sarcastic ? Oh, hell. I don’t even know when I’m being sarcastic anymore. What’s the use ?
[staggers off in search of a gallon drum of black coffee.]
Yo, folks, Kerry is a great supporter of environmental causes and, I believe, has a great track record on environment. We need to preserve clean air (and water, and land, and so on) as much as a woman’s right to choose.
I agree w/ kStyle that we need to preserve clean air, etc. But what is Kerry going to do? I haven’t heard anything out of his campaign on this yet. Will it be the Clinton/Gore environmental policies (which were a mixed bag)? And if Kerry continues the trend of giving more money & power to the wealthy & to corporations, will any good he does on the environment matter? Look at what happened to Clinton’s national monuments once he was out of office.
I believe Kerry has proposed a new clean and green economy: creating jobs in energy-conservation industries and such. Unfortunately, campaigns are run on “hot” issues (like terrorism), and the environment isn’t “hot” right now (except for global warming, ha ha), even though it’s near and dear to Kerry. Besides which, politicians–all politicians–mostly blow hot air during campaigns. You’re better off looking at their records than their campaign promises, in my mind.
Anyway–and this slips back into the “better than Bush” rationale, unfortunately–Bush has hacked up environmental legislation. Kerry loves Mamma Earth much more.
Jake,
“Geeze, Quad are you stupid or just annoying”
Do you always take yourself so seriously? Jeez, I was just kidding. No offense intended. To answer your question: stupid or annoying, the answer is: Yes.
See! Self effacing humor can be fun! Try it some time Squidward.
For what it’s worth Quad, I did think the DPN part was pretty funny . . .
The DPN thing was funny. But the first one – in the context of your recent posts….. well, I missed the joke. My apologies for missing it. Sometimes the written word is difficult to get intention from.
I don’t much like Kerry, and thus don’t feel like doing campaign work for him, but it’s easy enough to at least find his official stances on the environment. Just go his blog and type “environment” into the search engine.
“I understand Amy’s Roe V. Wade justification for voting Kerry, but most contributors to this forum seem to have a higher opinion of (and trust in) the Supreme Court than our current President. If a woman’s right to choose is constitutionaly sound, why worry?”
ummm.. last time I checked the # of wrinkles on the collective face of the Supremes was compounding daily. They’re not immortal – one or more may very well push up the daisies within the next 4 years; leaving Bush in control of nominating the replacement(s) and we’ve got a senate election next year which could easily leave the Repubs back in control of confirmations.
Thanks Jake and Raz.
Well, that’s the gamble, isn’t it, MustangSally? Four years ago, people were saying the same thing – but it looks as if all nine judges will get through this term without retiring or expiring.
Given the age of these folks, I think it’s unlikely that they’ll all hold out through 2008, which is the primary reason I’ll vote for Kerry. But I could be wrong. And I hate feeling like I’m caught in an unending cycle of voting for folks I dislike because it’s possible that they might (or might not) be able to change the composition of the court.
Not your fault, of course. It just cheeses me off. :-P
I really hope the rumor the Kerry is pondering McCain as a running mate is really just a rumor. I mean, WTF ?! We’d be voting for him in order to save choice from… his “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” lovin’ running mate ?!
Bourbon and Lexapro just don’t seem to offer the help they used to. I really need to take up smoking dope. [scowl]
The part of me that’s an Arizonan likes the idea of a McCain VP-ship. He is also a Senator who is more popular among Arizona democrats than among Arizona Republicans. But on the other hand, the part of me that’s sane and logical realizes that a McCain VP-ship is just furthering the Democratic Party’s descent into Republican-lite, when we’re so close, with Kucinich and others, from breaking away. Dear sweet lord, I hope Kerry doesn’t pick McCain.
I’m going for Mlinton.
You know, the more that I think about McCain, the more I like him in a weird, vaguely nauseated way. What I mean is that McCain is a very, very strange guy. His mannerisms are really creepy. He holds a LOT of really scary positions. But (and this is big to me) he is very, very pro-campaign finance reform. And, it seems to me, this may be the most important issue in front of us. Without CFR we will never have politicians who represent the people. Is the price to pay by having McCain as a VP worth it? I dunno but it’s something to think about.
I don’t know a ton about McCain’s positions–I imagine he’s a bit too conservative for my liking–but it IS refreshing to see a politician with *the light of reason* behind his eyes. Seems like he’s a man who *thinks* and often goes against party line.
Jake, so does Russ Feingold. Why don’t you want him for veep ?
[ponders changing her online name to She-Who-Persists-In-Spitting-Into-The-Wind]
D’you think Quad knew that my Roe mantra was sarcastic ?
Amy asks us all,
“Does Quad note my irony?”
Our answer is, “yes”.
In a better world it would be McCain and not Bush who won the primaries in 2000. A McCain presidency would have been better than a Bush presidency. But then, so would a Reanimated-Corpse-of-Richard-Nixon presidency. Even if his primary platform was eating brains.
I still like my idea of digging up and re-animating Goldwater better.
Ooh, another Arizona Republican who has gained respect of at least Arizona Democrats. Good choice.
Make sure to read Nathan’s qualification of his earlier post.
I feel like I should “get” Newman more than I do. It’s hard to avoid the thought that Repubs don’t care that Kerry is proposing stealth increases with this plan, according to Newman. They’ll still notice, they’ll still call it a tax hike, and the familiar refrain that everyone in the United States except the military and huge corporations (maybe I could’ve skipped the “and”) needs to tighten their belts some more will be heard once again. The usual suspects will laugh all the way to the bank. People like me will cry into our beer some more.
I rather thought Clinton’s health plan was proof that it doesn’t pay to come to the table timid in hopes of being welcomed by those who have repeatedly demonstrated hostility to one’s basic principles. One should come to the table loudly demanding the sun, moon, and stars and battle tooth and nail to hang on to at least one of them. That’s more my idea of a victory.
It’s hard for me to call any economic plan hopeful when its bearer can’t summon the courage to say that taxes do need to be raised where they previously have not been. It’s hard for me to feel grateful to someone (Kerry) who wants to help me behind the backs of his supposed idelogical foes, but not admit that he’s helping me to those same foes. If I rate help, why don’t I rate a public declaration that such help is my right as a citizen.
I was also pretty speechless at Newman’s analysis of Medicare reform[sic]. Perhaps the bridge between grumpy Lefty and eternally patient liberal is out for good. [shrug]
Interesting Article on Kerrynomics on National Review Online
[Notes that NRO also can’t mention military bloat for fear of being labelled wussy/girly/soft on terrorism.]
Groan.
[Goes off to look for yet more asprin.] :(
Amy S.,
I’d love to see Feingold as VP. But it isn’t going to happen, is it? For 2 big reasons that I can think of. One – not from the south (balance that New England Librul thang). Two – not a real high profile name to the masses.
But, honestly, what would you rather see as veep? McCain w/ his attendant evil BUT very pro-CFR? Or Phil Graham or Zell Miller w/ just their attendant evil? Because I’m pretty sure the Kerry camp will choose a conservative southerner. Aren’t you?
Where the blazes is Reed Richards or Bill Clinton or whomever with their @#!&#!+ “third way” when I really need it ?! [slams forehead on desk]
Amy,
It doesn’t seem to me that government support by refundable tax credit is a backhanded way of giving support, it is just a backhanded way of spending government funds. Kerry is openly stateing that he thinks therse are things that should be supported, he is just using the language of the Enemy to describe how it should be done. On the other hand, I agree entirely that the Dem’s main problem is that they argue for a few crumbs and end up with nothing, instead of arguing for the loaf and ending up with half. These tax credits sound likely to end up going exactly that way.
My main problems with these tax credits are two fold. The first is that there are many things that are better done by government action directly, such as providing health insurance. What good is a tax credit for half the cost of your health insurance if you don’t have work, or if you work part-time? If your employer doesn’t provide any? If your employer provides crappy health insurance? Maybe opening the federal employees health insurance system to the masses helps with this? The second thing is that tax credits have a long history (i.e. the Clinton administration) of being proposed as refundables and then being negotiated down to non-refundables. This means that all of these benefits will likely end up being provided to the upper middle class, but denied to the rest of us.
Yeah, and of course there’s also the coddling/humoring element involved in these credits. They reward/bribe CEOs for what isn’t even good/genuinely humane behavior but only the sort of behavior they should practice as a matter of course: Because fuck their precious bottom line;A nation in which wages are constantly being pressed downward through job loss/Mal-Wartization/exhorbitant healthcare costs and which yet expects workers to keep it affloat through ever-increasing spending levels amounts to a sort of large-scale pyramid scam. It simply can’t continue indefinitely and will eventually collapse under its own weight. Come to think of it, for millions of people it already has. Not that you’ll hear much about the peril and limited usefullness of this sort of legalized blackmail on the campaign trail, I suppose. Unless you’re lucky enough to be hearing Kucinich, of course. ;)