NationStates Jolt Archive

The Promise Season
John Kerry has been making many campaign promises this year, saying he will roll back the Bush tax cut, start reforms in health care, veterans services, education, etc. plus increase funding to a number of special interests, such as stem-cell research. Ah, yes. Promising to fix every problem the country has by throwing money at it, while cutting the deficit in half at the same time. Promising lots of things to lots of people - it's a clichéd campaign tactic, but one that voters still would do well to look into. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
It is.

The Kerry Deficit
If you look at his budget plan, there is a dangerously wide gap between how much money Kerry's tax policy will bring in and how much he plans to spend. He plans to remove portions of the Bush tax cut. This puts him $658 billion ahead over 10 years. However, his health-care reform plan alone is expected to cost $653 billion, eating up most of the money he is planning to bring in. Keep in mind he now only has $3 billion to work with. Let's look at more promises he has to fund:
> $25 billion to undo state cutbacks in educational funding and staffing
> $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds
> $11 billion more to help schools meet No Child Left Behind requirements
> $12 billion for special education
> $14 billion over four years to help students pay for college.
And that's just in education. That puts him $81.8 billion dollars in the hole. Oh, then there's over $200 billion more for veterans health care. At least $281.8 billion of new debt.

These stats do not include his plans for Medicaid, energy and child-care programs.

So you've got to ask yourself: on which of these promises is he going to back down? Which guarantees are going to go up in smoke? The one you were counting on? You can believe the promises, or the math: Kerry's policies will not reduce the deficit, they will inflate it.

If anyone here still thinks he will reduce the deficit instead of contributing to it, please explain how.

And, keep in mind, that these monstrous "the rich" he talks about are not a bottomless supply of money. We already tax away 40% of their incomes and there's still a deficit. They aren't an instant solution to every budget problem.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=608&u_sid=1130692

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Kerry is a moron, but he is a democrat so it makes sense. :lol:

But anyways more importantly
The last straw can land in your mix
Your best day could be apocalypse

(LoL) :lol: (I voted for it befor I voted against it) (LoL)

kerrys I think a little confused! (LoL) :lol: :mrgreen:

Campaign promises almost always get scaled back when the person gets elected in office. That's why politicians always ask for more than they can get... it makes sure that they at least get *something*.

Once again... Kerry is a politician. In the Senate, things get tacked onto bills that don't belong there, and you can either vote for the bill, with its bad additions, or you can vote against it. Kerry voted against it the first time, but then when these additons were taken off he voted for it. Understand?

Once again... Kerry is a politician. In the Senate, things get tacked onto bills that don't belong there, and you can either vote for the bill, with its bad additions, or you can vote against it. Kerry voted against it the first time, but then when these additons were taken off he voted for it. Understand?
Reynes isn't talking about senate bills, he's talking about campaign promises...

I should have directed that second comment. I was talking to nemo

Keep in mind that it is this beautiful war we have going on that gives us so little breathing room. The only thing worse than continuing to spend so much money in Iraq is to withdraw from Iraq.

You also failed to mention any present programs he might intend to cut, (I doubt he will be as generous to all of the faith based organizations out there) and all spending that may be made obsolete by new plans.

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Okay, tell that to Bush who's overseen the growth of the federal government to the largest it's been since before the end of the Cold War and in direct contrast to a reduction in the size of the federal government over the Clinton administration. In direct opposition to his campaign platform to cut a bulky federal government, Bush has actually grown it while cutting budgets and jobs for social service agencies while increasing government usage of contractors.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htm

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Okay, tell that to Bush who's overseen the growth of the federal government to the largest it's been since before the end of the Cold War and in direct contrast to a reduction in the size of the federal government over the Clinton administration. In direct opposition to his campaign platform to cut a bulky federal government, Bush has actually grown it while cutting budgets and jobs for social service agencies while increasing government usage of contractors.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htm

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Okay, tell that to Bush who's overseen the growth of the federal government to the largest it's been since before the end of the Cold War and in direct contrast to a reduction in the size of the federal government over the Clinton administration. In direct opposition to his campaign platform to cut a bulky federal government, Bush has actually grown it while cutting budgets and jobs for social service agencies while increasing government usage of contractors.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htmI'm going to say this ONCE.
BUMP.
The left almost always tries this tactic. They find something they don't want to hear, they try to turn it into The New Bush Flame Thread.

Here, we're talking about Kerry. That's it.

Also, exactly what if anything is he trying to cut? One will get you ten it's funding for the military (in the area of weapons, vehicles, bases, and supplies.)

Kerry is a moron, but he is a democrat so it makes sense. :lol:

But anyways more importantly
The last straw can land in your mix
Your best day could be apocalypseI thought I should check with you about your nation's name...
"K" is the eleventh letter in the alphabet, times three, "KKK".

That was unintentional, right?

I think this is hard to tell, because at changes of Presidency, their are often economic factors beyond their control that effect the surplus/deficit that usually rears its head.

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Okay, tell that to Bush who's overseen the growth of the federal government to the largest it's been since before the end of the Cold War and in direct contrast to a reduction in the size of the federal government over the Clinton administration. In direct opposition to his campaign platform to cut a bulky federal government, Bush has actually grown it while cutting budgets and jobs for social service agencies while increasing government usage of contractors.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htmI'm going to say this ONCE.
BUMP.
The left almost always tries this tactic. They find something they don't want to hear, they try to turn it into The New Bush Flame Thread.

Here, we're talking about Kerry. That's it.

Also, exactly what if anything is he trying to cut? One will get you ten it's funding for the military (in the area of weapons, vehicles, bases, and supplies.)
Ah grasshopper, but in a binary race it is about Bush as much as it is about Kerry. And you know this, though you attempt to hide behind the redirect.

In essense, you present a criticism against Kerry which carries the tacit endorsement of the alternative, which would be Bush. So, granting your analysis and thesis, it is fair to compare it with the alternative-which is Bush. And what is stated is that even if your analysis is accurate, it is still better than the alternative. That is in fact a valid argument. This is a binary race and comparitive arguments HAVE to be made. It says something about a canidate if he cannot stand up to comparison and has to shun such arguments.

I say instead of more spending we spend less and stop creating more programs and reasons to spend!

Okay, tell that to Bush who's overseen the growth of the federal government to the largest it's been since before the end of the Cold War and in direct contrast to a reduction in the size of the federal government over the Clinton administration. In direct opposition to his campaign platform to cut a bulky federal government, Bush has actually grown it while cutting budgets and jobs for social service agencies while increasing government usage of contractors.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htmI'm going to say this ONCE.
BUMP.
The left almost always tries this tactic. They find something they don't want to hear, they try to turn it into The New Bush Flame Thread.

Here, we're talking about Kerry. That's it.

Also, exactly what if anything is he trying to cut? One will get you ten it's funding for the military (in the area of weapons, vehicles, bases, and supplies.)

HA! And I'm only going to say this once. This is the tactic the right uses, the misdirection application. When they see something they don't like, they try to attack the epistimology of the argument instead of the facts of the argument. The simple reason is that they have no response to the facts.

Guess what, this is an open forum not a Parlementary debate governed by Robert's Rules of Order. I was directly responding to a previoius comment and providing a source for further analysis. If you think my argument was out of place, then why in the name of faulty advertising did you draw attention to it by trying to dismiss it?

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.
There in lies the rub. If it is something that we should take into account at the voting box, then the alternative vote has to be considered, thus it is fair in the argument to mention and compare. Kerry is not running un-opposed.

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.
There in lies the rub. If it is something that we should take into account at the voting box, then the alternative vote has to be considered, thus it is fair in the argument to mention and compare. Kerry is not running un-opposed.

He's right! You have to look at what he plans to do. You have to look at what both parties are saying. Just because you hate one causing you to vote for the other, is a WASTE OF VOTE! Look at what they all are saying. Kerry will roll back the tax cuts thus causing our economy to go down instead of up. Most people agree rolling them back now is the last thing to do! Before people say that Bush is stupid and a moron. Look how the Economy GREW UNDER HIM!! Jobs are being Created at an astounding rate. Yes he still has a net loss but by election time, they are forcasting that he'll have a net GAIN OF JOBS!

I just think we should keep on topic for once, all right? I mean, it's so obvious that the majority of people here are left-wing. They hijack even the most conservative topics and turn them into ten pages of anti-Bush conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you would do it, because you seem to be less of an ultraliberal than most. But there are those who would start off of your post and turn this topic into a seething anti-Bush rally. I just think the public should know what I have found about Kerry before going to the voting box. This is not propaganda. These are statistics I have read in my newspaper. If it were propaganda, I wouldn't have mentioned the rolling back of the tax cut. I would like to stay on topic, nothing more. If someone finds out how he plans to eliminate the deficit when the stats say he is going to take us further into debt, we can debate that. But this topic focuses on Kerry, noone else.
There in lies the rub. If it is something that we should take into account at the voting box, then the alternative vote has to be considered, thus it is fair in the argument to mention and compare. Kerry is not running un-opposed.

He's right! You have to look at what he plans to do. You have to look at what both parties are saying. Just because you hate one causing you to vote for the other, is a WASTE OF VOTE! Look at what they all are saying. Kerry will roll back the tax cuts thus causing our economy to go down instead of up. Most people agree rolling them back now is the last thing to do! Before people say that Bush is stupid and a moron. Look how the Economy GREW UNDER HIM!! Jobs are being Created at an astounding rate. Yes he still has a net loss but by election time, they are forcasting that he'll have a net GAIN OF JOBS!
It is a binary race, if you dislike one candidate that leaves you to vote for the other, thus the need for comparisons. It is likely that you'll find things that you don't like about either, and if you find yourself in a position of voting for the who you dislike less than the other, thats the nature of a binary race. Therefore it is not a wasted vote, its a vote for the person you think will do the better job. If you believe the person you don't like will do a worse job than the other person, thats a vote. Don't like it? Help start third parties or change the nature of our election system (I'm not being flipant, we are a malliable by nature government that is ment to change with our needs).

That is the core of the argument I was making. If you agree with his core argument about Kerry, that's one thing. But to say the argument doesn't include Bush, thats not accurate.

Kerry will roll back the tax cuts thus causing our economy to go down instead of up.

Um, says who? The tax cuts haven't spurred economic growth at all. They just finished revising the latest growth and it's not nearly as good as Bush has been touting. Plus, the tax cuts are only affecting the top 10% of earners and corporates. And Bush's budget next year calls for even more spending (bringing the deficit to a record high) with no new revenue sources, so guess what's getting cut? That's right, social life line programs, national health programs (Medicare/Medicaid) and everyone's favorite cash cow, Social Security.


Before people say that Bush is stupid and a moron. Look how the Economy GREW UNDER HIM!! Jobs are being Created at an astounding rate. Yes he still has a net loss but by election time, they are forcasting that he'll have a net GAIN OF JOBS!

Who's saying this? No economic forcasts I have seen have said there will be a gain of jobs by November. Bush's own people aren't even as confident in their numbers as they were in January and he's behind in his own predicitions as well. Plus, the jobs being created are of a lower quality than the jobs lost and there is no reason to think this will improve. A McJob can not support a family of four with bills indefinitely, particularly when they're part time positions or temporary positions or don't offer benefits.

It's never a good idea to put someone in the Oval Office just to get someone else out. I mean, look at Nixon, for Christsakes. People just wanted to get rid of LBJ, Nixon told them what they wanted to hear (pull out of 'nam), but he didn't (Vietnamezation). Now, you want to get rid of Bush, Kerry's telling you what you want to hear...

At least look at his plans before going to vote, or we could wind up in deeper sh*t than we are now.

This topic died quick.

You notice how the left does not respond to stuff like this in attempts to bury it, and when they do respond, they try to turn the topic against Bush? Typical.

This topic died quick.

You notice how the left does not respond to stuff like this in attempts to bury it, and when they do respond, they try to turn the topic against Bush? Typical.

You are so right Holbrookia!

This topic died quick.

You notice how the left does not respond to stuff like this in attempts to bury it, and when they do respond, they try to turn the topic against Bush? Typical.

Sounds like a good conspiracy theory!

Better get that tinfoil hat on!

As the self-appointed King of Smileys...

http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/tinfoil.gif

As the self-appointed King of Smileys...

http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/tinfoil.gif

:lol:

If anyone here still thinks he will reduce the deficit instead of contributing to it, please explain how.I will explain how, but not in detail. John Kerry has promised to cut pork barrel spending. That's it. That's the money he plans to redirect to his new programs.

As for which pork barrel spending he will cut, that can't be precisely predicted since the proposed pork barrel spending changes each year and we don't have any specific earmarks on the 2005 budget yet. In 2002, there were approximately 8000 pork barrel projects (conservative estimate). If John Kerry ends up being the president and then Congress passes a similar spending bill, Kerry would not sign it if he were to keep his campaign promises.

Would he keep such a promise? I don't know because John Kerry has never had the power to block the earmarks in one fell swoop. George W Bush made similar promises in 2000. He did not keep those promises. He signed the spending bills, pork barrels and all