Convince me to vote for Kerry

[MalevolentLight]

There's a reason the Republicans control everything after 9/11 and the Democrats are losing power. Enough said. People aren't buying the same old lines about minority rights and fighting for the middle class. We heard it with Clinton and he made some of the biggest tax hikes in history (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/ecoa4b.html). The fact is the Democratic party has been using the same lines for years and they just keep repeating them but when you get right down to it there is nothing to go with it; it's just rhetoric and propaganda. Usually people scream the loudest when they are losing. The left is losing power and this election is going to determine whether or not the left completely fades from existence or hangs on for another 4 years.

I also find it amusing how loathe some of you people are to admit that you are liberals, present candidate included. I guess I have Reagan to thank for that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


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

Why do you choose to ignore that people high in the French government and close associates of Chirac received vouchers?

Why do you choose to ignore that Chirac has a long history of being on the take from his days as Mayor of Paris?

Chirac is as corrupt as they come.

[MalevolentLight]

Why do you choose to ignore that people high in the French government and close associates of Chirac received vouchers?

Why do you choose to ignore that Chirac has a long history of being on the take from his days as Mayor of Paris?

Because he's their foremost leader of international resistence to the US devil empire. It is incomprehensible that the leader of such a moral and esteemed nation such as France opposed us because they were on the payroll of a brutal dictator. It has to be that Bush is corrupt, not Chirac, and this must be a vast right wing conspiracy to undermine our well intentioned "allies'" opposition to Bush.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Both sides do this when they're either losing an argument or frustrated with the opponent. A leftist will typically call the opponent stupid or evil, and a rightist will typically call the opponent a degenerate (socially values) or a traitor. *shrug*

-Arrian

Not me. You will noticed that I will actually agree with points made by the other side, not that I'm adverse to poking fun at stuffed-shirt leftists who take themselves too seriously.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, the consensus view seems to be that unbalanced budgets and government induced demand are a primary if not the only way to get out of a depression, and that balancing budgets and raising taxes only reinforces a recession into a depression.

Remember, we only really got out of the depression of the 30's when we began massive deficit spending during WWII.

WWII caused us to get out of the depression. How much the policies of the era helped is highly debateable.

As for handling a depression:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0815203.html

It is not entirely agreed upon generally speaking.

Anyhow, Kerry is proposing a tax increase on the very upper end of the bracket, and those can handle less money for a while. They are more resistant to lower incomes. He is then going to boost the working class, who in turn will boost the overall economy.

Bush wants to increase our debt by trillians of dollars with no plan in site on getting out of that eventual mess. We already spend a large amount of the yearly income of the Fed on paying off just the interest on our current debt. I don't think increasing it by 10-30% is a very good idea.

There is operating under a deficit (which is what Kerry will do) and then there is making the deficit an extraordinarily massive problem. We cannot affrod to burden future generations any more than we have to.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Handily ignoring the fact the more buying power means the companies are getting more profit; the working class loves to spend money. That's going to increase the profits companies make.

-Drachasor

What companies? Surely not the ones who have to pay the higher minimums.

The effect of the bubble is short term because companies compensate by reducing employment in some fashion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident


but they will be compensated by unemployment insurance. And in the mean time the higher paid workers will be spending the extra money putting it back into the economy creating more jobs. They won't be out of work long.

I expect a temporary dip in employment if the minimum wage increases. But overall I think it is good for the economy to raise minimum wage every so often.

Dis, you really have to take economics. Price controls always cause dislocations. Always.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Why do you choose to ignore that people high in the French government and close associates of Chirac received vouchers?

Why do you choose to ignore that Chirac has a long history of being on the take from his days as Mayor of Paris?

Chirac is as corrupt as they come.

Innocent until proven guilty, and as there is not even any evidence against Chirac at the moment you must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Additionally, there are American individuals and corporations involved, but whose names haven't been released.

This sort of thing is the corruption of a few individuals, who will be found eventually, but not the outright endorsement of countries. That is seeing conspiracies where there are none. Iraq is much more of a threat to Europe than he is to us, and the governments are not crazy enough to endore giving him more power.

Once again, there is no evidence of Chirac being involved nor of any government being involved. There are only the actions of a few individuals and some companies at worst. Some of these are U.S. companies and individuals whose names haven't been released.

And once again, we still need many strong allies if we are to stay a global superpower. Demonizing entire countries for the errors of a few is not the way to conduct foreign policy.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Anyhow, Kerry is proposing a tax increase on the very upper end of the bracket, and those can handle less money for a while. They are more resistant to lower incomes. He is then going to boost the working class, who in turn will boost the overall economy.

Bush wants to increase our debt by trillians of dollars with no plan in site on getting out of that eventual mess. We already spend a large amount of the yearly income of the Fed on paying off just the interest on our current debt. I don't think increasing it by 10-30% is a very good idea.

There is operating under a deficit (which is what Kerry will do) and then there is making the deficit an extraordinarily massive problem. We cannot affrod to burden future generations any more than we have to.

-Drachasor

All of this does not change the fact that Kerry opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place at the height of the recession, and has been highly critical of the deficit during the entirety of Bush's term, not just now. We are now out of the recession where reducing the deficit becomes fiscally responsible.

What I said is true. Either Kerry is being completely disengenous concerning the deficit, or he is completely ignorant concerning economics. Regardless of which is true, he does not inspire confidence.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
What companies? Surely not the ones who have to pay the higher minimums.

The effect of the bubble is short term because companies compensate by reducing employment in some fashion.

Income will be spent, stimulating the economy and making it grow. Companies needing to pay a lot of minium wages would be hurt a bit early on, but would grow and benefit as the rest of the economy took off.

-Drachasor

[MalevolentLight]

Anyhow, Kerry is proposing a tax increase on the very upper end of the bracket, and those can handle less money for a while. They are more resistant to lower incomes. He is then going to boost the working class, who in turn will boost the overall economy.

Before I even go into how ridiculous that idea is, let me first ask how many god damn times have we heard this from a Democrat? If time they run for election it's always about how the rich make too much money and they are stepping all over the poor so we're going to tax the **** out of the rich and bring them down. Well who are the so called "rich"? The real population of the "rich" is made up of small business owners who make over 200K a year, but aren't making millions. They are greatly affected by tax increases and you can bet if you hit their pockets they are going to make cuts. I know this for a fact because my father is a small business owner. He's struggling to make ends meet right now while he pays off debt and if kerry gets elected he is ****ed. And all those people that work for him are ****ed too because they're out of a job. Your idea of "boosting" the working class has never worked and never will work. We heard the same god damn things from Clinton and it didn't work. Again, it's just the same tired lines over and over and over again. All the Democrats do is set one side against another. You talk about how the white man is pushing down the black man. You talk about how the rich are stepping all over the poor. Get a new line for once and actually back up your "policies" and "plans" with some real statistical numbers because it is obvious a tax increase on only the rich isn't going to pay for everything Kerry has proposed.

[Ned]

BTW, calling an argument perverse is not the same thing as calling the adversary perverse. The problem with LoTM is that he would reward bad economics and bad foreign policy with control of the government. I call that argument perverse. I think the better argument is that the Democrats should be allowed back in power when their policies are closer to the mainstream.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
All of this does not change the fact that Kerry opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place at the height of the recession, and has been highly critical of the deficit during the entirety of Bush's term, not just now. We are now out of the recession where reducing the deficit becomes fiscally responsible.

What I said is true. Either Kerry is being completely disengenous concerning the deficit, or he is completely ignorant concerning economics. Regardless of which is true, he does not inspire confidence.

Bush's tax cuts were stupid. They should have been focused on the middle and lower class. They were not, despite Bush's lies to the contrary.

Bush has no plan to reduce the deficit other than to spend even more money and somehow hope that the economy grows so much we are making many, many trillians more in taxes. That is a pipe dream and a poor excuse for bad fiscal policy. There is deficit spending and there is spending money without regard for what you can afford. Bush is doing the latter. His social security proposal alone could easily cost 2 trillion dollars; that's not something we can afford, that's not something that would stimulate the economy.

Kerry wants to work towards a balanced budget, and that partially means that you acknowledge any deficit spending will be temporary. Bush doesn't, he wants to make everything permanent. Kerry wants to give benefits to the working class that are the equivalent of a tax cut, and he wants to do it responsibly.

I guess if you don't mind our debt increasing by many trillions of dollars, you can vote for Bush.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Innocent until proven guilty, and as there is not even any evidence against Chirac at the moment you must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Additionally, there are American individuals and corporations involved, but whose names haven't been released.

This sort of thing is the corruption of a few individuals, who will be found eventually, but not the outright endorsement of countries. That is seeing conspiracies where there are none. Iraq is much more of a threat to Europe than he is to us, and the governments are not crazy enough to endore giving him more power.

Once again, there is no evidence of Chirac being involved nor of any government being involved. There are only the actions of a few individuals and some companies at worst. Some of these are U.S. companies and individuals whose names haven't been released.

And once again, we still need many strong allies if we are to stay a global superpower. Demonizing entire countries for the errors of a few is not the way to conduct foreign policy.

-Drachasor

Bull. There is evidence that people high in the French government and close to Chirac were involved. This does not per se mean that Chirac is involved, but it does raise a lot of questions does it not?

Your lack of incredulity is incredulous.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Bush's tax cuts were stupid. They should have been focused on the middle and lower class. They were not, despite Bush's lies to the contrary.

-Drachasor

They were "stupid" only if you believe in socialism.