Convince me to vote for Kerry

[Arrian]

Interesting take on it, LotM.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

If that means we have to live through another era like the 50s, blech!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Interesting take on it, LotM.

-Arrian

Thanks.

Note that this rationale implies a commitment to being part of the inevitable struggle for the soul of the Kerry administration. A struggle which i fully expect to be bitter. Far more bitter than, say the war the NYT carried on against Bill Clinton over welfare reform, or that Harpers carried on against Clinton over Clintons support for globalization and market democracy. Indeed, one rationale for voting for Kerry would be to have more credibility in that struggle.


Im so glad i dont live in a swing state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm not a socialist. I don't want socialized medicine... I want the most efficient and highest quality health care system.

What socialist ideas do I hold? I can't think of any.

I'd classify myself as a Progressive... like Teddy Roosevelt.

My ideals:
progressive tax system
free education
most efficient health care (if a single-payer system is the best, then so be it... but I really don't know if socialized medicine could do better.)
government regulated economy (not government controlled... two different things)
America having the strongest, most advanced military

I'm a bigtime social liberal... I am libertarian in that aspect. But in terms of economics, I'm slightly left of center.


but a socialist? nope... although I agree with them on some things... like abuses by corporations and such.

You seem to differ from the traditional socialist position only on details of policy implemetation.

What is your position on the following statement:

A primary purpose of government is to foster "social equality."

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun





Che is ignorant about liberalism as well, the way he spews out hateful labels such as "spineless" but you are WORSE in your ignorance about liberalism.


I am not a socialist -- I am a moderate liberal (I don't consider myself absolutely centrist, but to the left of centrism).

Please explain the basic tenets of your liberalism, if you please. If you have a noted author who has laid out your philosophy, that might help.

But I will ask you the same question I asked Sava. What do you think about this statement?

A primary purpose of government is to foster "social equality."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Better economy? Than a depression? The economy was going to recover on its own, and it is still a mess. Over half a million net jobs still gone, and that says nothing of the lack of growth that is needed for the 9 million new immigrants and general population growth.

Big business recovered because of Bush, company profits are up. Working Class families are in a mess, and the measly Bush tax cut is a joke.

-Drachasor

Drach, the thing you apparently don't understand is that Kerry has advocated balancing the budget and raising taxes to do that during a recession. Historically, that policy when implemented has caused great depressions. I refer you to Martin van Buren and Herbert Hoover.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
You seem to differ from the traditional socialist position only on details of policy implemetation.

What is your position on the following statement:

A primary purpose of government is to foster "social equality."

That's funny, because when I have said I am a socialist, everyone starts telling me what my policies are concerning government ownership of near everything, and so forth. When I tell them I am for social equality and related items, but I disagree with the way these have traditionally been implemented in Europe, I am told I am not a socialist. (My position is then that I am either not a socialist, but share some beliefs with them, or I am some sort of neo-neo-socialist or a "pragmatic socialist").

Anyhow, you can't act like socialism is crazy or bound for horror if you allow "socialists" to use any methods they want to foster greater social equality. There are a lot of things that simply haven't been tried.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

I think it's generally called the Third Way.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Another reaosn to vote for Kerry:

posters like Wiglaf

There is a pattern to the leftist dialetic. If they lose the battle of ideas, they either divert attention or attack their adversary personally.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, the thing you apparently don't understand is that Kerry has advocated balancing the budget and raising taxes to do that during a recession. Historically, that policy when implemented has caused great depressions. I refer you to Martin van Buren and Herbert Hoover.

LOL, you think that is what caused the Great Depression? Overpriced stocks, buying stocks on credit, and Hoover's raising of farm *tarriffs* made and worsened the depression. Kerry isn't proposing any tarrifs (the only thing even close is equalizing the taxes for off-shore companies compared to ones in the U.S. which is quite different).

The economy is already on a slow recovery, and it will recover faster by giving the working class the equivalent of tax breaks. The rich can survive a few rough months a lot better than the poor, and heck, the only thing keepin the economy from fully recovering is the lack of spending by the working class. Right now a lot of business have made much more massive recoveries than the job market; they can take a hit to their incomes (and they were doing just fine under Clinton too).

-Drachasor

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If that means we have to live through another era like the 50s, blech!

nothing wrong with the 50's. unless you were a minority (but that was no different than in the 40's- it was a slow process)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
nothing wrong with the 50's. unless you were a minority (but that was no different than in the 40's- it was a slow process)

Or poor or a woman or gay or an intellectual or basically anything else that went against the mainstream. The 50s, a culturally dead, soul sucking vampire decade. The reason the 60s were so over the top was because of the 50s.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ned


Please explain the basic tenets of your liberalism, if you please. If you have a noted author who has laid out your philosophy, that might help.

But I will ask you the same question I asked Sava. What do you think about this statement?

A primary purpose of government is to foster "social equality."

I don't like the word social. I'd use civil instead. And of course the primary purpose of the federal goverment is to provide national security- ie a military to unite the states against a common aggressor.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned


There is a pattern to the leftist dialetic. If they lose the battle of ideas, they either divert attention or attack their adversary personally.

Oh, I thought they were just commenting on Wiglaf's innane and incorrect ramblings.

While some companies in other countries exploited holes in the Oil for Food program, the governments weren't part of it. His innane banter doesn't help his position either, nor does it lessen the fact that we need many allies, many strong allies, and many close allies to maintain our status in the world.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm starting to waver in my support for a third party candidate. I'm a flip-flopper .

I'm now thinking of voting Kerry.

What I ask of my fellow democratic poly members is this (remember I'm in a swing state- I could decide the next president ). In another thread people were saying raising the minimum wage is almost always followed by economic expansion.

If someone will provide proof of this (independant sites not associated with loonie liberal sites) I will promise to vote for John Kerry.

I am voting tomorrow, so get cracking.

Dis, think.

1) You raise wages of a significant number of people you get two short term effects: more buying power in the hands of the minimum wage worker; and

2) Continued buying power for those who are laid off due to unemployment insurance.

But after a while, the unemployment compensation ends, and overall employment and employability is reduced. This reduces overall economic activity.

Money does not grow on trees. Neither does the ability to pay wages. Those who tell you otherwise are lying to you.