NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, originally I was going to make this an anti-Kerry post, but then I realized I wasn't sure of the facts... so I figured I'd ask everyone.

Have you noticed that Kerry talks about helping out all these people and repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, blah blah blah, but yet he is the richest man to have ever run for U.S president, and if he is elected, will be the richest man ever to be president. If he truly cares so much about people, why doesn't he donate part of his 50 something million dollar fortune (I know 25 million would be alot to give to charity, but do you honestly think he's going to ever manage to spend 50 mil?, or even 25 mil) to charity, and spend some of his time volunteering at charities?

So, do I have the facts wrong and Kerry does donate regularly to charities and give his time to help out, or am I right and Kerry is a huge hypocrite?

Okay, originally I was going to make this an anti-Kerry post, but then I realized I wasn't sure of the facts... so I figured I'd ask everyone.

Have you noticed that Kerry talks about helping out all these people and repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, blah blah blah, but yet he is the richest man to have ever run for U.S president, and if he is elected, will be the richest man ever to be president. If he truly cares so much about people, why doesn't he donate part of his 50 something million dollar fortune (I know 25 million would be alot to give to charity, but do you honestly think he's going to ever manage to spend 50 mil?, or even 25 mil) to charity, and spend some of his time volunteering at charities?

So, do I have the facts wrong and Kerry does donate regularly to charities and give his time to help out, or am I right and Kerry is a huge hypocrite?

the last non rich person to run for president was probably lincoln

BINGO! You are correct. Kerry's largest donation to charity was only 4,000 dollars. Same year he bought a 10,000+ Motorbike. Ironicaly he also wants to raise taxes across the board, taking away money from the poor, after he gives it to them.

Now I don't hate rich people, good for them that they, or their parents, earned a lot of money. But still, this is somewhat absurd. He talks about 'Rich people are evil, rich people want to take your money, lets go get 'em!" And then goes off on his multi-million dollar yacht for vacation, or goes to his massive residence on Long Island, or to his Beacon Hill apartment (next to the Massachusetts Capital, trust me, that land is expencive) or he goes on a ski holiday...

Now... is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture?

Kerry does donate to charities monitarily, and quite heavily since 1995 (the year he married a millionaire) - well above the tithing level, figure an average of arrond 15%.


As for time -well he does have 2 families and a job as a US Senator so I don't know how much free time he can spare for charity, but if we accept his motivation for being a senator is because he feels it is the best place to help people then alot of his time can be considered as being spent 'helping people',

Remember the passage in the Bible:
"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime". Democrats need to learn that the only way to help the poor out of poverty is to teach them and give them the chance to earn money, not just give it to them. Let them earn it. That is what capitalism is all about.

BINGO! You are correct. Kerry's largest donation to charity was only 4,000 dollars. Same year he bought a 10,000+ Motorbike. Ironicaly he also wants to raise taxes across the board, taking away money from the poor, after he gives it to them.

Now I don't hate rich people, good for them that they, or their parents, earned a lot of money. But still, this is somewhat absurd. He talks about 'Rich people are evil, rich people want to take your money, lets go get 'em!" And then goes off on his multi-million dollar yacht for vacation, or goes to his massive residence on Long Island, or to his Beacon Hill apartment (next to the Massachusetts Capital, trust me, that land is expencive) or he goes on a ski holiday...

Now... is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture?
1) taking away tax breaks for the rich costs HIM tax breaks
2) heinz kerry has a very expensive annual scholarship thing, 17 mil program i believe
3) wow, he goes o na ski holiday? i know non rich people that do that..

BINGO! You are correct. Kerry's largest donation to charity was only 4,000 dollars. Same year he bought a 10,000+ Motorbike.
Largest single donation, big deal. In 2002 he gave some $20,000+ to chairity, on an income of about $150,000-.

the last non rich person to run for president was probably lincolnUm what do you consider rich? I mean Clinton was doing OK and could pay most of his bills, but rich?

I am more curious about how much Goveror Bush has donated to charity and the fact that he is becoming richer at the expense of Homeland Security makes it that much worse. Now that he has won his ultimate goal (control of the oil in Iraq) he can sit back and watch his bank account grow larger while the people who had to suffer on that road struggle to regain their lives. Let's not forget the real reason for the Iraq war.

I doubt that Senator Kerry being rich would have a bearing on how much compassion or fight he would have for the unemployed, homeless, sick, and stuggling middle class. It is Governor Bush that seems to have blinders on when it comes to seeing that there are people outside of his "have's and have mores".

Senator Kerry seems to have a better grip on reality than Governor Bush.

I'm pretty that $150,000 is his salary as a Senator and he's got money elsewhere.

And the "teach a man to fish quote" isn't from the Bible. It's anonymous, but it's not sure not biblical. For other humourous variations: http://www.amatecon.com/fish.html

As for Clinton he became rich from property deals- I *think*. I'm also sure that one POTUS gave his salary to charity.

Most of JK's wealth actually belongs to his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, owner of the Heinz ketchup empire.

Remember the passage in the Bible:
"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime". Democrats need to learn that the only way to help the poor out of poverty is to teach them and give them the chance to earn money, not just give it to them. Let them earn it. That is what capitalism is all about.

I agree, let them earn it! But for them to do that, there must be some JOB CREATION and Senator Kerry seems to have the only handle on how that can happen - STOP OUTSOURCING JOBS TO OTHER COUNTRIES! If you want to "teach them how to fish" then make sure the lake is well stocked.

If I was really rich i woudn't give that much money to charity, probably about a million a year at most.

Remember the passage in the Bible:
"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime". Democrats need to learn that the only way to help the poor out of poverty is to teach them and give them the chance to earn money, not just give it to them. Let them earn it. That is what capitalism is all about.
That's a good theory. I like the idea of lifting yourself out of poverty. But a lot of right-wingers assume that the playing field is at the same level for everyone. The reality is different. The kind of moderate welfare program that I would support is not so generous as to encourage people not to work, but it would help level the playing field. Remember, you need money to make money.

Just a note on the current welfare system in the State of Texas.

I looked it up based on my family as if I were making $0 annual income.

A family of five can get $276.00 per month AFDC on a $0 income. In order to keep that $276, both parents must spend 40 hours per week applying for jobs. $276 per month will not pay for the gasoline required to do that if the person lives in a rural area where there is no mass transit.

Wow ... generous welfare system ...

Just a note on the current welfare system in the State of Texas.

I looked it up based on my family as if I were making $0 annual income.

A family of five can get $276.00 per month AFDC on a $0 income. In order to keep that $276, both parents must spend 40 hours per week applying for jobs. $276 per month will not pay for the gasoline required to do that if the person lives in a rural area where there is no mass transit.

Wow ... generous welfare system ...Well if you're only on AFDC you're in trouble. I suggest looking to get in some section 8 housing, perhaps. maybe JOBS. Definetely register for medicaid, you might get sick or otherwise need to go to a doctor and relying upon the Texas only medical assistance for the poor is sometimes not enough.

I also question the both parents 40 hours@ provision, last time I checked (2002) it was for a dual parent family 35 hours split between the 2 parents / 55 hours if they were recieving subsidized childcare.

Well if you're only on AFDC you're in trouble. I suggest looking to get in some section 8 housing, perhaps. maybe JOBS. Definetely register for medicaid, you might get sick or otherwise need to go to a doctor and relying upon the Texas only medical assistance for the poor is sometimes not enough.

I also question the both parents 40 hours@ provision, last time I checked (2002) it was for a dual parent family 35 hours split between the 2 parents / 55 hours if they were recieving subsidized childcare.

Granted I didn't delve very deeply into it as I don't need it, but it does strike me as being a little self-defeating. I can't imagine a family of five existing on $276 per month. Even if they own their home and get free gasoline, the child-care expense while searching for jobs would be overwhelming.

Actually, Teresa Heinz heads one of the largest endowment charities in the United States. Also, Kerry is not as rich as you think. Yeah, sure he's rich, but he does have a Prenuptial agreement with Heinz. So, it's not like her money is his. Also from what I had heard because of her not him they would be the richest couple to ever hold office. In fact I believe both Edwards and Cheney have more money then Kerry himself, only Bush who doesn't, he has to wait till his parents die. But Bush is still rich, he just wasn't the business man as the other three I guess.

Granted I didn't delve very deeply into it as I don't need it, but it does strike me as being a little self-defeating. I can't imagine a family of five existing on $276 per month. Even if they own their home and get free gasoline, the child-care expense while searching for jobs would be overwhelming.But they can get subsidized childcare, and with zero income it would be completely subsidized. And lets not forget WIC. A family with children and $0.00 income in any of the states in the US is eligable for at least 10 welfare programs, in fact it can be a fulltime job just to fill out and file the paperwork and do the interviews for all the welfare benefits one is eligable for, although this is getting better.

Actually, Teresa Heinz heads one of the largest endowment charities in the United States. Also, Kerry is not as rich as you think. Yeah, sure he's rich, but he does have a Prenuptial agreement with Heinz. So, it's not like her money is his. Also from what I had heard because of her not him they would be the richest couple to ever hold office. In fact I believe both Edwards and Cheney have more money then Kerry himself, only Bush who doesn't, he has to wait till his parents die. But Bush is still rich, he just wasn't the business man as the other three I guess.Bush is also better off than Kerry. Since his marriage he's been able to do quite well, but before that his finances were pretty shakey.

Bush is also better off than Kerry. Since his marriage he's been able to do quite well, but before that his finances were pretty shakey.

Well Bush has actually never succeeded at any thing in the private sector. His oil company went belly up. He sucked as a baseball team owner, I believe, but you'd have to check, he sold the baseball team to pay for his race for Governor of Texas.

But they can get subsidized childcare, and with zero income it would be completely subsidized. And lets not forget WIC. A family with children and $0.00 income in any of the states in the US is eligable for at least 10 welfare programs, in fact it can be a fulltime job just to fill out and file the paperwork and do the interviews for all the welfare benefits one is eligable for, although this is getting better.

Man ... if I can live as well on welfare as I do working, I'm going to stop working!

I should look into this more ...

Man ... if I can live as well on welfare as I do working, I'm going to stop working!

I should look into this more ...
you cant live on welfare, hell you cant live on minimum wage

you cant live on welfare, hell you cant live on minimum wage

dang ... was looking forward to more time with the kids ...

Man ... if I can live as well on welfare as I do working, I'm going to stop working!

I should look into this more ...
Well you probably can't, but who knows - are you working for under $10/hr? But you can certainly do better than $276.00/month. Welfare in the US is by no means generous and you are usually better off working, but it is nearly always enough.

I've had welfare envy too. When you work with some of these people and wonder why you're helping someone who's children have more pocket cash than you do, it gets fustrating. But when you crunch the numbers, working is usually better.

since part of charity is not getting anything back, maybe Kerry is keeping some of his donations a secret

Is the 'richest president' figure based on Kerry himself, or is it based on the amount of money his wife has?

The Republicans have been trying to smear Kerry over the fact that his wife keeps control of her money, rather than giving it to him - and now it sounds like the underground rumour mills are also painting him as a millionaire...

While we are at it, though.... isn't George W Bush the first president of the United States to assume office WITH a criminal record?

While we are at it, though.... isn't George W Bush the first president of the United States to assume office WITH a criminal record?

Umm, who cares about a criminal record? I have a concealed weapon charge, and almost all of my friends have charges of anything from DUI to minor possession. It isn't really that uncommon. Next you'll be posting about his speeding tickets. And I'm sure there were other presidents with criminal records, its almost impossible to get through the teenage years with one. I mean, let's not start with criminal records, or we might have to refer to good ol' Bill Clinton's perjury. That's a little more serious to me, since he was actually IN office at the time.

While we are at it, though.... isn't George W Bush the first president of the United States to assume office WITH a criminal record?
Nope. Andy Jackson, at least, had a criminal record.

since part of charity is not getting anything back, maybe Kerry is keeping some of his donations a secretI doubt it, I don't see where he could find the money to make any more dontions. Unless you think he's taking bribes?

Well Bush has actually never succeeded at any thing in the private sector. His oil company went belly up. He sucked as a baseball team owner, I believe, but you'd have to check, he sold the baseball team to pay for his race for Governor of Texas.Well, Bush is also not independently wealthy, but that really isn't relevant to the question. Bush has more money than Kerry, but that's mostly because Kerry has so little. Alimony, child support and working in DC while maintaining residency in Mass. take a big chunk out of even a senator's income. Bush at least got free housing while he was gov. of Texas and hasn't had to pay alimony or child support, and he didn't spend all of his Ranger money on his gubernatorial campaign. Things appear to be going much better financially for Kerry now that he can sponge off of his wife (he no longer has to pay for a hotel room when visiting his kids), but he's still got kids in college on a senator's salary and some pretty hefty expenses.

Kerry really isn't all that wealthy, he has spent his entire life working for the government, and that doesn't exactly pay superbly. And if you really want to make a big deal about it, cheney has several times ther personal wealth that Kerry himself has, you can say kerry's wife is rich, but her assets are spearate from his. Oh and he doesn't want to raise taxes across the board, if you saw his speech he wants to lower middle class taxes and raise them for people making over $200,000 per year.

Bush has more money than Kerry, but that's mostly because Kerry has so little.

According to their tax returns.. Kerry is worth more then Bush, however that won't be true once Bush Sr. dies.

According to their tax returns.. Kerry is worth more then Bush, however that won't be true once Bush Sr. dies.
Depends on which section of the returns and which returns you are reading. Some numbers can even be used to paint Kerry as wealthier than Bush, Edwards or Cheney - estimating his personal holdings and share of his joint holdings with his wife at $27-$57Million, compare that to Cheney's reported $20M-$86M, take the lower end and Kerry's richer than Cheney. I suppose it's probably best to ignore Kerry's wealth since it's so subject to personal defintion, and so intwined with his wives. Bush however has at least $5Million in T-Bills, so he's no pauper.

Um what do you consider rich? I mean Clinton was doing OK and could pay most of his bills, but rich?

You forget the money Hillary had from the miraculous futures invest. Invest 5 thousand, make $100,000

I am more curious about how much Goveror Bush has donated to charity and the fact that he is becoming richer at the expense of Homeland Security makes it that much worse. Now that he has won his ultimate goal (control of the oil in Iraq) he can sit back and watch his bank account grow larger while the people who had to suffer on that road struggle to regain their lives. Let's not forget the real reason for the Iraq war.

I doubt that Senator Kerry being rich would have a bearing on how much compassion or fight he would have for the unemployed, homeless, sick, and stuggling middle class. It is Governor Bush that seems to have blinders on when it comes to seeing that there are people outside of his "have's and have mores".

Senator Kerry seems to have a better grip on reality than Governor Bush.

"I don't fall down when I ski, it's those slimy secret service agents. I'm John Kerry and I was in Vietnam!"

Well Bush has actually never succeeded at any thing in the private sector. His oil company went belly up. He sucked as a baseball team owner, I believe, but you'd have to check, he sold the baseball team to pay for his race for Governor of Texas.

How do you suck as a partial team owner? Not like he would tell the GM who to sign, or tell the manager who to pitch to a certain pitcher. You just give money to the team. Have you ever run an oil company, or a baseball team? How can you pass judgement on him for those things if you've never done any of those things successfully? But it's easy to judge someone when you sit in front of your computer.

you cant live on welfare, hell you cant live on minimum wage

Then work 2 jobs!

since part of charity is not getting anything back, maybe Kerry is keeping some of his donations a secret

yeah, and Kerry is a good Catholic who believes in abortion!! The chances of that are slim and none, and none just left.

Then work 2 jobs!
oh yes, lets all go work 2 full time jobs to try and live in the capitalist world

yeah, and Kerry is a good Catholic who believes in abortion!! The chances of that are slim and none, and none just left.

I knew there was a reason that we have separation of church and state. And Kerry, like me and many people I know, is a Catholic who does not believe in abortion, but he also doesn't believe that it is right to deny people the right to have an abortion. And as far as donations go, who really cares, what he does with his money is his buisness. He certianly doesn't put it all up his nose like Bush did.

Kerry really isn't all that wealthy, he has spent his entire life working for the government, and that doesn't exactly pay superbly. And if you really want to make a big deal about it, cheney has several times ther personal wealth that Kerry himself has, you can say kerry's wife is rich, but her assets are spearate from his. Oh and he doesn't want to raise taxes across the board, if you saw his speech he wants to lower middle class taxes and raise them for people making over $200,000 per year.

And the loch ness monster is real. He is really very wealthy. You don't think his Forbes money came in yet?

Okay, originally I was going to make this an anti-Kerry post, but then I realized I wasn't sure of the facts... so I figured I'd ask everyone.

Have you noticed that Kerry talks about helping out all these people and repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, blah blah blah, but yet he is the richest man to have ever run for U.S president, and if he is elected, will be the richest man ever to be president. If he truly cares so much about people, why doesn't he donate part of his 50 something million dollar fortune (I know 25 million would be alot to give to charity, but do you honestly think he's going to ever manage to spend 50 mil?, or even 25 mil) to charity, and spend some of his time volunteering at charities?

So, do I have the facts wrong and Kerry does donate regularly to charities and give his time to help out, or am I right and Kerry is a huge hypocrite?
Well I do believe that they give back, at least Mrs. Kerry:

Under her leadership, the Heinz foundations are widely known for developing innovative strategies to protect the environment, improve education and the lives of young children, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, promote the arts and help women achieve financial economic security.

Also....

In September of last year, she was presented with the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism, for her work protecting the environment, promoting health care and education and uplifting women and children throughout the world. She was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.

So take it for what you will.

Remember the passage in the Bible:
"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime". Democrats need to learn that the only way to help the poor out of poverty is to teach them and give them the chance to earn money, not just give it to them. Let them earn it. That is what capitalism is all about.

Well, obviously Kerry's a very successful capitalist, then, as he's "The Richest Man To Ever Run For President". So what's the problem? You're basically saying a person's success is measured by the size of their bank account so Kerry is clearly superior to Bush.

oh yes, lets all go work 2 full time jobs to try and live in the capitalist world

Work hard if you want something. What is wrong with that. Lots of people have 2 jobs. Sell your computer too, because that's a luxury, spend the cash on your rent.

And the loch ness monster is real. He is really very wealthy. You don't think his Forbes money came in yet?

He inhereted 3 trusts from his mother in Nov. 2002 worth between $300,000 and $1.5 million in assets.

It's a nice amount - even on the low end - but hardly enough to call him "very wealthy".

Work hard if you want something. What is wrong with that. Lots of people have 2 jobs. Sell your computer too, because that's a luxury, spend the cash on your rent.
im making a point, you are pretending im poor, you are the epitome of an indifferent ignorant conservative capitalist

if peoplea re poor they are lazy bums and dont work, if they worked they would be irhc, because everyone in capitalism is rich and can afford everything the ywant, and if they cant they need to work harder than 10 hours a day

if they worked they would be rich, because everyone in capitalism is rich and can afford everything they want

Man ... I wish that were true ... I'd be giving Bill Gates a run for his money ...

Ah well ... maybe next lifetime.

Work hard if you want something. What is wrong with that. Lots of people have 2 jobs. Sell your computer too, because that's a luxury, spend the cash on your rent.

Idiot, we're talking about people who don't have anything to BEGIN with.


I know this is hard-almost impossible-to believe. But...people are born in poverty!

<GASP SHOCK AWE!>

Please tone down the name calling people. If it keeps up warnings will be issued.

Thank You.
Stephanie
Game Moderator

Ironicaly he also wants to raise taxes across the board, taking away money from the poor, after he gives it to them.
Thats a lie

Well Bush has actually never succeeded at any thing in the private sector. His oil company went belly up. He sucked as a baseball team owner, I believe, but you'd have to check, he sold the baseball team to pay for his race for Governor of Texas.
Despite the fact that he sucked in his business ventures, he still managed to walk away with a lot of wealth. Check this totally unbiased biography (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/) for details of his $850K stock sale of a technically banckrupt oil company, or his $14.9 million share of the 1998 Rangers sale. That'll keep him in Viagra long after the Iraq war is over and he has to look for other excitement.

American politics is nearly brain-dead anyway. If the number of political parties you can feasably vote for in a general election falls below three (effectively one in the US, because they're pretty much the same), you know you've got a problem. I personally don't see how anyone can support a deserting "daddy's boy" of considerably lower intellect than my pet goldfish. There.

American politics is nearly brain-dead anyway. If the number of political parties you can feasably vote for in a general election falls below three (effectively one in the US, because they're pretty much the same), you know you've got a problem. I personally don't see how anyone can support a deserting "daddy's boy" of considerably lower intellect than my pet goldfish. There.

LOL!

Please tone down the name calling people. If it keeps up warnings will be issued.

Thank You.
Stephanie
Game Moderator


Gotcha

Sorry ;)

Actually, Teresa Heinz heads one of the largest endowment charities in the United States. Also, Kerry is not as rich as you think. Yeah, sure he's rich, but he does have a Prenuptial agreement with Heinz. So, it's not like her money is his. Also from what I had heard because of her not him they would be the richest couple to ever hold office. In fact I believe both Edwards and Cheney have more money then Kerry himself, only Bush who doesn't, he has to wait till his parents die. But Bush is still rich, he just wasn't the business man as the other three I guess.I figured someone would have handled this before I got to it.

LordaeronII, you have your facts wrong. John Kerry doesn't have the wealth you ascribe to him. Kerry's personal net worth is somewhere in the $4-6 million range--a lot of money to be sure, but not the outrageous sum that many claim he has. His wife has a tremendous fortune, but anyone who deals with the estates of the super-wealthy will tell you that her wealth does not translate into his control, at least, not since women started getting equality.

In fact, with all the talk about Kerry's and Edwards' wealth, I think it's important to note that Bush and Cheney are no slouches in the wealth department either. Cheney made a fat amount of money as CEO of Halliburton, and Bush came from wealth--the only money he "earned" was what he got when rich family friends bailed him out of businesses he'd run into the ground.

I'm not trying to say that Kerry and Edwards aren't rich--they are--but don't let that overshadow the fact that Bush and Cheney have just as much money, if not more.

He talks about 'Rich people are evil, rich people want to take your money, lets go get 'em!" And then goes off on his multi-million dollar yacht for vacation, or goes to his massive residence on Long Island, or to his Beacon Hill apartment (next to the Massachusetts Capital, trust me, that land is expencive) or he goes on a ski holiday...

Really, can you please point me towards where he called every rich person evil.
So it's ok to be rich and not care about anyone but yourself and possibly other rich people, but if a rich person sees the less well-off getting a raw deal, it's not ok to do something about it, or it is ok to do something about, providing you give up all your worldly goods first, thus decreasing your ability to do anything about it. For goodness sake, Lincoln did not have to stop being white to end slavery and improve the lives of those previously subjected to that disgusting institution.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
you cant live on welfare, hell you cant live on minimum wage


Then work 2 jobs!

And if that doesnt do it (and there are many cases in which it doesnt) work three jobs. Was it only a few decades ago that everyone believed in working to live, rather than believing that most people only live so they can work. At only 2 40hour jobs, getting a very conservative 6 hours sleep per night, there goes 75 hours in the week already, not including travel time, possibly via public transport, but probably walking. I guess if you are going to work those two jobs you ought to eat, and that will lead to going to the toilet. And of course the jobs are so the bills can be paid, which also takes time, then there is keeping one's self, clothes and house clean, tax forms, and all this without any time set aside to be part of a family, to be a parent for instance. The implication of your suggestion is that people no longer can expect to work to live, they live only to work.

Work hard if you want something. What is wrong with that.
Nothing, the problem is that right now many many people are working very very hard and not getting what they need, much less what they want.

Lots of people have 2 jobs.
Why? 30 years ago the means of production was not as efficient. Various technologies have increased the capacity for instance. 30 years the ago 'the norm' was for most families to have only one wage earner, able to support a spouse and children. So production has gotten more efficient (ie can produce more for the same amount of imput), and yet where once the average middle class wage earner could support a family, we now have individuals who must work 2 jobs and still be at risk of not being self-sufficient.

As a side note, I find it strange how often the notion that 'it is ok for parents to need to spend so much time working' coexists in the heads of people with the notion that children are 'going off the rails and require better parenting'. Another odd pairing of ideologies, those who think it's ok for the government to cut back on education spending, yet believe that today's young people lack thinking skills and education.

How a discussion premised on 'Kerry is rich and does not give to the poor and so he is rubbish' has morphed into 'poor people dont deserve to be given anything' I could understand, if it appeared that those inclined to go with the first premise were not those who tend toward the second.....
So Kerry is a slacker for not giving his money to slackers, slackers are slackers for needing Kerry to given them money, in fact the only ones who are not slackers are the Neo Liberals, you can tell that they are not slackers, because instead of spending their time cleaning toilets for minimum wage, they prefer for instance to hang out by the pool in hotels where they like to rent penthouse suites that costs more per night than those with their hands down a toilet earn in several months, even with two jobs......