NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2384275
A $445 billion deficit in the US budget is by no means rosy. However, I've been thinking that only five years before, as a dollar amount, we had a record surplus. A few years before that, we were deep in the red. It shows that this deficit is big, but it is also extremely volatile. The White House predicts the deficit to start coming down by next year, no matter who's in the White House. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if, no matter who is in the White House, the deficit reaches another high. It's just too speculative to predict accuratly, anymore.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2384275
A $445 billion deficit in the US budget is by no means rosy. However, I've been thinking that only five years before, as a dollar amount, we had a record surplus. A few years before that, we were deep in the red. It shows that this deficit is big, but it is also extremely volatile. The White House predicts the deficit to start coming down by next year, no matter who's in the White House. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if, no matter who is in the White House, the deficit reaches another high. It's just too speculative to predict accuratly, anymore.

One thing is for sure, if we didn't go to war it wouldn't be this bad, and if it weren't for the needless tax cuts it wouldn't be this bad, so it can be controlled in some aspects that much is certian.

Does it actually fall on deaf ears that Bush has had record deficits through-out his 4 years in office?

Does it actually fall on deaf ears that Bush has had record deficits through-out his 4 years in office?
what?

Does it actually fall on deaf ears that Bush has had record deficits through-out his 4 years in office?
Probably not, because, as the White House budget director points out, this deficit is only 3.8% of the GDP. The last time the US was in a major deficit, it was 6%. However, the economy wasn't hurt bad. It's just when it gets over 10% of the GDP that we really need to worry.

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.

How do you figure? It has also been speculated that it will double in the next fiscal year if bush is re-elected. Kerry voted to balance the budget in the Reagan years, not allow him to increase the size of the defecit. I think you need to stop suckling on the tit of the republican propaghanda machine.

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.
heh...I'd make a bet on that
decreasing the deficit isn't hard- you just increase taxes
which is what he'll do
that's what democrats stand for, lots of taxes and lots of spending
while republicans stand for very little taxes and very little spending...oh wait... how'd the deficit get so big with so little spending?

*NOT A DEMOCRAT**DOESN'T LIKE TAXES*

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.

But the same is true for Bush. There's no reason to believe that Kerry will increase deficit spending (although, I think your speculation is most likely correct). However, there is every reason to think that Bush will because he has over the last four years. By cutting taxes and starting long term military actions, Bush has managed to create a record deficit and by his plans to continue those tax cuts but not curtail spending (and, in fact, increase federal government size), that deficit is bound to continue. He has, without a doubt, taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit, regardless of the percentage of the GDP. I'm interested to know why you think Kerry will increase the deficit more than Bush, who's track record is already proven.

heh...I'd make a bet on that
decreasing the deficit isn't hard- you just increase taxes
which is what he'll do
that's what democrats stand for, lots of taxes and lots of spending
while republicans stand for very little taxes and very little spending...oh wait... how'd the deficit get so big with so little spending?

*NOT A DEMOCRAT**DOESN'T LIKE TAXES*
Neither party is unable to decrease spending in this country because of lobbyists, as I read in Illiberal Democracy: the Future of Freedom at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. The best option, therefore, is not to create new spending, something which Kerry seems to be against. We can raise taxes, and he probably will. But raising taxes can be just as harmful to an economy as a deficit worth 20% of the GDP.

But the same is true for Bush. There's no reason to believe that Kerry will increase deficit spending (although, I think your speculation is most likely correct). However, there is every reason to think that Bush will because he has over the last four years. By cutting taxes and starting long term military actions, Bush has managed to create a record deficit and by his plans to continue those tax cuts but not curtail spending (and, in fact, increase federal government size), that deficit is bound to continue. He has, without a doubt, taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit, regardless of the percentage of the GDP. I'm interested to know why you think Kerry will increase the deficit more than Bush, who's track record is already proven.
I call it healthcare. Kerry's $900 billion spending package on healthcare won't be sufficiently covered by taxes only from the wealthiest 2%. He also has programs on education that will require more spending. Bush may be spending more, but even with the tax cuts, tax revenue is only increasing. With tax increases, which I'm vehemently opposed to, the revenue will always be the same, as economic growth gets flatter and flatter. Europe has high tax rates, and their economy is largely flat.

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.

That's pure speculation and you know it. You can't make a statement like that, there is no evidence to support your assertion other then a partisan opinion.

Neither party is unable to decrease spending in this country because of lobbyists, as I read in Illiberal Democracy: the Future of Freedom at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. The best option, therefore, is not to create new spending, something which Kerry seems to be against. We can raise taxes, and he probably will. But raising taxes can be just as harmful to an economy as a deficit worth 20% of the GDP.

Really anything that kerry would do at this time is pure speculation, but it is certian that things will only get worse, as far as that national debt goes, with bush in office.

That's pure speculation and you know it. You can't make a statement like that, there is no evidence to support your assertion other then a partisan opinion.
Try a new $900 billion spending package on healthcare. It'd probably make it far more bureaocratic than it is today, and it might even be more expensive than that. Kerry has some ideas for some big spending packages, and most dangerously, the government would control more than a quarter of the US economy.

It's been a long time since I studied economics. If I remember correctly, deficit spending is beneficial in a struggling economy. The government has always been allowed to "deficit spend". It is not illegal and it is sometimes necessary. There will always be highs and lows.

It's been a long time since I studied economics. If I remember correctly, deficit spending is beneficial in a struggling economy. The government has always been allowed to "deficit spend". It is not illegal and it is sometimes necessary. There will always be highs and lows.

Kmesian theory which you are speaking of has not been a viable option since the end of WWII.

Try a new $900 billion spending package on healthcare. It'd probably make it far more bureaocratic than it is today, and it might even be more expensive than that. Kerry has some ideas for some big spending packages, and most dangerously, the government would control more than a quarter of the US economy.

Oh yes and you believe with the Republicans in control of both houses Kerry will actually make all those promises come true? If he does it's because the Republicans let him.. and you know that's not going to happen. Promises are things they want to do, will try to do.. it doesn't mean they're always successful and no one runs for office not knowing that. Nor does any one who has a clue about politics believe otherwise.

It's been a long time since I studied economics. If I remember correctly, deficit spending is beneficial in a struggling economy. The government has always been allowed to "deficit spend". It is not illegal and it is sometimes necessary. There will always be highs and lows.
Exactly. As was shown during the Reagan years, a deficit, even one bigger than today's, didn't hurt the economy, but rather it helped it. Of course, as an economy gets better, deficits usually decrease in size. During Reagan's years, the deficit peaked in 1983, the first full year of an economic recovery. Today, it may peak again, though it was slightly late.

Try a new $900 billion spending package on healthcare. It'd probably make it far more bureaocratic than it is today, and it might even be more expensive than that. Kerry has some ideas for some big spending packages, and most dangerously, the government would control more than a quarter of the US economy.

$900 billion dollars is a number that you got from the bush-cheney campaign commercial, which they intern pulled out of thin air, I said it once today already, pricing for a lot of his ideas is incredibly complex and it will take time to see how much these things will really cost.

Exactly. As was shown during the Reagan years, a deficit, even one bigger than today's

What part about "record" are you having trouble with? Record implies more then any one else!

Oh yes and you believe with the Republicans in control of both houses Kerry will actually make all those promises come true? If he does it's because the Republicans let him.. and you know that's not going to happen. Promises are things they want to do, will try to do.. it doesn't mean they're always successful and no one runs for office not knowing that. Nor does any one who has a clue about politics believe otherwise.
Even if he doesn't get the full package passed, he'll likely get something. And if Kerry wins, it'll most likely coincide with the election of more Democrats to Congress. I think that it is very likely they'll gain control back of the Senate this year, with or without Kerry. The House may have little choice but to work with him, especially if the Democrats gain more seats. After all, even today, the Republicans don't have a supermajority in the House.

$900 billion dollars is a number that you got from the bush-cheney campaign commercial, which they intern pulled out of thin air, I said it once today already, pricing for a lot of his ideas is incredibly complex and it will take time to see how much these things will really cost.
The US GDP is about $11 trillion. Americans spend 12.5% of the GDP on income. Do the math.

What part about "record" are you having trouble with? Record implies more then any one else!
Does this record show substantially higher interest rates, too?

The US GDP is about $11 trillion. Americans spend 12.5% of the GDP on income. Do the math.

What does that have anything to do with anything I just said?

What does that have anything to do with anything I just said?
It means that, in order to insure around 40 million Americans with the premiums today, the cost will be extremely high. Even if it isn't $900 billion, it'll probably surpass the Defense budget, and maybe even Social Security.

But you also have to realize that if heath care goes to the government entirely, employers are going to have to pay more because they won't have the barganing power or inscentives that they have with their health care and benefit plans, so there will be a larger influx of money onto the market to balance out the cost a little bit.

But you also have to realize that if heath care goes to the government entirely, employers are going to have to pay more because they won't have the barganing power or inscentives that they have with their health care and benefit plans, so there will be a larger influx of money onto the market to balance out the cost a little bit.
That will, however, create new problems. As it is, many companies cannot afford healthcare benefits for their workers. If they are forced to pay more, it will mean that businesses will have less room to expand, and may possibly not hire anyone new. Deficits, in my mind, come secondary to the health of the economy, because if this keeps businesses from expanding, economic growth will be flat. And if Kerry further raises taxes, growth will be even flatter, and it probably will contribute to the deficit.

I call it healthcare. Kerry's $900 billion spending package on healthcare won't be sufficiently covered by taxes only from the wealthiest 2%. He also has programs on education that will require more spending. Bush may be spending more, but even with the tax cuts, tax revenue is only increasing. With tax increases, which I'm vehemently opposed to, the revenue will always be the same, as economic growth gets flatter and flatter. Europe has high tax rates, and their economy is largely flat.

But again, I ask you, how likely is it that, even if Kerry gets elected and even if the Congress goes overwhelmingly Democrat, that a $900 billion health care plan will make it through? Not very. It's an ambitious plan designed to get people talking and it is the height of good negotiation: Always ask for way more than you want so you have bargin room. He knows that's not going to happen and the rest of us should too. So it's pure speculation at this point.

And Bush's spending is far outpacing economic growth. So even though the economy is technically growing (although that's slowing down considerably), he continues to spend away any advances we may be making and then starts borrowing to cover the rest.

That will, however, create new problems. As it is, many companies cannot afford healthcare benefits for their workers. If they are forced to pay more, it will mean that businesses will have less room to expand, and may possibly not hire anyone new. Deficits, in my mind, come secondary to the health of the economy, because if this keeps businesses from expanding, economic growth will be flat. And if Kerry further raises taxes, growth will be even flatter, and it probably will contribute to the deficit.

But again, that is all merely speculation. So I say pretty much, we know Bush isn't doing a great deal of good, so lets give him a shot.

Even if he doesn't get the full package passed, he'll likely get something. And if Kerry wins, it'll most likely coincide with the election of more Democrats to Congress. I think that it is very likely they'll gain control back of the Senate this year, with or without Kerry. The House may have little choice but to work with him, especially if the Democrats gain more seats. After all, even today, the Republicans don't have a supermajority in the House.

Well, but it's hardly fair or even good speculation to say that, because Kerry's plan theoretically costs $900 billion and he'll get at least "something" passed depending on Congressional makeup, that means it's going to be a huge figure that'll inherantly break the bank more than Bush already has. You can just as easily say the same thing about Iraq and that continued costs of our operations over there are going to be astronomical.

But again, I ask you, how likely is it that, even if Kerry gets elected and even if the Congress goes overwhelmingly Democrat, that a $900 billion health care plan will make it through? Not very. It's an ambitious plan designed to get people talking and it is the height of good negotiation: Always ask for way more than you want so you have bargin room. He knows that's not going to happen and the rest of us should too. So it's pure speculation at this point.

And Bush's spending is far outpacing economic growth. So even though the economy is technically growing (although that's slowing down considerably), he continues to spend away any advances we may be making and then starts borrowing to cover the rest.
Some of the spending is necessary, but indeed, quite a bit is outlandish. It also leads me to say that I've seen outlandish things passed in Congress in the past two years, like the $400 billion Medicare overhaul. But my arguement is that Kerry will spend even more. I'm not fond of how the past twenty years in Washington have been marked by ever-increasing spending, but I've come to assume that it won't change in my lifetime. The best any of us can do is slow it down. Kerry will do the opposite.

one thing is for certian, if kerry wins the fiscal dealings of the government will be getting an overhaul, I would really hate to work for the GAO >_<

Some of the spending is necessary, but indeed, quite a bit is outlandish. It also leads me to say that I've seen outlandish things passed in Congress in the past two years, like the $400 billion Medicare overhaul. But my arguement is that Kerry will spend even more. I'm not fond of how the past twenty years in Washington have been marked by ever-increasing spending, but I've come to assume that it won't change in my lifetime. The best any of us can do is slow it down. Kerry will do the opposite.

I understand your argument, but all I'm saying is that if you're just basing it on this one pie in the sky health care package that will most likely never even see the light of day in Congress, then I'm not sure I can agree with you that Kerry will spend more than Bush. He'll spend differently, make no doubt, but not inherantly more. It's also rather alarming that you can have this discussion about a Republican administration and it's one of the reasons I left the party. I saw this coming, the idea of less government bloat being abandoned for "Our Idea Of Government Bloat". Both parties now spend outlandishly and will continue to do so.

Kmesian theory which you are speaking of has not been a viable option since the end of WWII.
I'm old but not that old...

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2384275
A $445 billion deficit in the US budget is by no means rosy. However, I've been thinking that only five years before, as a dollar amount, we had a record surplus. A few years before that, we were deep in the red. It shows that this deficit is big, but it is also extremely volatile. The White House predicts the deficit to start coming down by next year, no matter who's in the White House. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if, no matter who is in the White House, the deficit reaches another high. It's just too speculative to predict accuratly, anymore.
BTW Purly, did you read half way down the page on the link that you provided?

''They're claiming improvement?'' said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. ''That is utterly preposterous.''

In early February, the White House predicted that the deficit in this fiscal year would be $521 billion.

So, who is to be believed? The top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee or a White House press release?

BTW: The calculations do not include any additional spending in Iraq and Afghanistan after early next year when current appropriations will run out.

However, to leave no question about this, I do believe that, if Kerry gets elected president, deficits will probably surpass Reagan's as a percent of GDP, and probably go further. It may even have the serious impact on the economy that is often talked about, but it never happens. In any case, Kerry as president will certainly mean that our national debt will go through the roof.
Speculation on your part?

Here is over $51 Billion in annual savings with the roll back of tax cuts to those earning over $200,000:

You will notice that 200,000 people, making $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $127,000 for a total of $25 Billion

384,000 people making $500,000 to $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $24,146 for a total of $9.2 Billion

2,300,000 people making $200,000 to $500,000 will get a "tax cut" of $7,430 for a total of $17 Billion

That only affects about 2.8 Million tax payers.

Try a new $900 billion spending package on healthcare. It'd probably make it far more bureaocratic than it is today, and it might even be more expensive than that. Kerry has some ideas for some big spending packages, and most dangerously, the government would control more than a quarter of the US economy.
Do you have a source for the $900 Billion price tag for the healthcare package? You say it so often, you must have a source? BTW, is that per year or over several years?

Do you have a source for the $900 Billion price tag for the healthcare package? You say it so often, you must have a source? BTW, is that per year or over several years?
Too bad I have answers to all of these questions. I've decided I'm not answering them when they come from you.

Too bad I have answers to all of these questions. I've decided I'm not answering them when they come from you.

Will you answer them for me? Please? I even complimented you in another thread...

Seriously, though, I've been wondering about this as well. The only thing I can find from Kerry's camp is a $650 billion number and that's an outside figure and spread out over the next 10 years.

Oh, and just some links to let you know that I have been trying. :)

http://ljworld.com/section/legislature/story/176037

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

And here's one that says both sides are playing fast and loose with the numbers.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154

Will you answer them for me? Please? I even complimented you in another thread...

Seriously, though, I've been wondering about this as well. The only thing I can find from Kerry's camp is a $650 billion number and that's an outside figure and spread out over the next 10 years.

Oh, and just some links to let you know that I have been trying. :)

http://ljworld.com/section/legislature/story/176037

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

And here's one that says both sides are playing fast and loose with the numbers.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154
Well, ok. It'll take me a few minutes to answer them all, though.

Try a new $900 billion spending package on healthcare. It'd probably make it far more bureaocratic than it is today, and it might even be more expensive than that. Kerry has some ideas for some big spending packages, and most dangerously, the government would control more than a quarter of the US economy.Look--you've made this statement a bunch and I'm going to call you on it. You consistently say it's a $900 billion dollar program, but you never say how long that's amortized out. Why don't you mention that part of it--it's not like this $900 billion is coming out of one fiscal year and you know it. You're being intellectually dishonest by acting as though it is.

Edit: Wow--teach me to jump into a thread without reading the last page first. :D

BTW Purly, did you read half way down the page on the link that you provided?

''They're claiming improvement?'' said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. ''That is utterly preposterous.''

In early February, the White House predicted that the deficit in this fiscal year would be $521 billion.

So, who is to be believed? The top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee or a White House press release?

BTW: The calculations do not include any additional spending in Iraq and Afghanistan after early next year when current appropriations will run out.
Even so, provsiions for the War on Terror will be less than last year. The initial provisions were $70 billion, plus $87 billion later. The part of those figures that were military will need to be replenished, but Iraq especially has the vast majority of its US aid unspent. It's a shame, but it at least means that the US won't need to fund them too much more.

Speculation on your part?

Here is over $51 Billion in annual savings with the roll back of tax cuts to those earning over $200,000:

You will notice that 200,000 people, making $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $127,000 for a total of $25 Billion

384,000 people making $500,000 to $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $24,146 for a total of $9.2 Billion

2,300,000 people making $200,000 to $500,000 will get a "tax cut" of $7,430 for a total of $17 Billion

That only affects about 2.8 Million tax payers.
Nice colors in the text. BTW, $51 billion is more than what many countries are worth, but in terms of the US government, that's chump change.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
This just shows that, while the top 2% pay quite a bit, it's only about half of what Kerry needs.
As for the healthcare plan, that's paid over a decade. Most programs are for less that are over a decade, and I'm sure that after the plan is approved, it may cost more due to bureaocracy (it always does). In any case, here it is.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154

Will you answer them for me? Please? I even complimented you in another thread...

Seriously, though, I've been wondering about this as well. The only thing I can find from Kerry's camp is a $650 billion number and that's an outside figure and spread out over the next 10 years.

Oh, and just some links to let you know that I have been trying. :)

http://ljworld.com/section/legislature/story/176037

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

And here's one that says both sides are playing fast and loose with the numbers.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154
Interestingly enough, I use the last link for my case. I really do think it's harder on Kerry, though.

But again, that is all merely speculation. So I say pretty much, we know Bush isn't doing a great deal of good, so lets give him a shot.
It has precedent, at least the tax issue. In the 1930s, spending increased due in large part to FDR's "New Deal" programs. It didn't hurt the economy, as WWII woke up our industrial engine again. That didn't come until the early sixties. Economic growth was flat, as personal income tax rates hovered between 65% and 90% between 1940 and 1980. When the tax rate was slashed to 40% in 1981, economic growth skyrocketed until today. If we raise taxes as much as Kerry needs to, I fear we may be going back to the economic growth of the seventies. And should stagflation happen again when Kerry is in office, I find it hard for the economy to recover.

Even so, provsiions for the War on Terror will be less than last year. The initial provisions were $70 billion, plus $87 billion later. The part of those figures that were military will need to be replenished, but Iraq especially has the vast majority of its US aid unspent. It's a shame, but it at least means that the US won't need to fund them too much more.

Well, not exactly unspent. More like unaccounted for, which is far more troubling. Additionally, what this doesn't take into account is the new reliance on outside contractors to do the job. So while it may look like these provisions are going down, real costs continue to rise sort of under the table and off the books. And what evidence do you offer that suggests War on Terror special provisions won't continue to grow? Even if they shrink by, oh, let's say a random number. 25%. Yeah, I think I can do that math. Even so, that puts the total cost of the War on Terror (and, now that I think about it, do you mean the War on Terror as a whole or simply the action in Iraq?), at least the directly militarily funded part, at (and I know there's an easier way to do this, but I'm not an accountant so forgive my clumsy math):

70+87+(87*.25)+(65.25*.25)+(48.89*.25)+(36.67)=$307.81 billion by 2007.

Kerry's health plan, even assuming the worst of $900 billion (and I'm still in no way inclined to believe that number, athough the factcheck.org site was very interesting), spread out over a 10 year period would be $90 billion a year, hardly that big a difference in overall spending.

Interestingly enough, I use the last link for my case. I really do think it's harder on Kerry, though.

Oh, it definitely is and it's certainly interesting. It's also old. That source is a specific March 12th, 2004 debunking of the spin on both sides regarding these numbers. Who knows what the real numbers are at this point?

And again, the point still stands that, even in a best case scenario for Kerry (a win and a strongly Democrat Congress), there is no way this plan would get into practice with that kind of price tag on it.

Another point to make is that Kerry isn't going to count solely on the rollback of the tax cuts on the top 2% of wage earners for revenue increases. He's also planning on closing the corporate tax loopholes that allow companies to dump profits into offshore shell companies to avoid taxes--a plan he adopted from Edwards and a necessary part of any long term growth plan.

Another point to make is that Kerry isn't going to count solely on the rollback of the tax cuts on the top 2% of wage earners for revenue increases. He's also planning on closing the corporate tax loopholes that allow companies to dump profits into offshore shell companies to avoid taxes--a plan he adopted from Edwards and a necessary part of any long term growth plan.

Not to mention the simple reallocation of funds from tax dollars that aren't in question. Like I said, Kerry will most certainly spend differently from Bush, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest that he will spend more.

Well, not exactly unspent. More like unaccounted for, which is far more troubling. Additionally, what this doesn't take into account is the new reliance on outside contractors to do the job. So while it may look like these provisions are going down, real costs continue to rise sort of under the table and off the books. And what evidence do you offer that suggests War on Terror special provisions won't continue to grow? Even if they shrink by, oh, let's say a random number. 25%. Yeah, I think I can do that math. Even so, that puts the total cost of the War on Terror (and, now that I think about it, do you mean the War on Terror as a whole or simply the action in Iraq?), at least the directly militarily funded part, at (and I know there's an easier way to do this, but I'm not an accountant so forgive my clumsy math):

70+87+(87*.25)+(65.25*.25)+(48.89*.25)+(36.67)=$307.81 billion by 2007.

Kerry's health plan, even assuming the worst of $900 billion (and I'm still in no way inclined to believe that number, athough the factcheck.org site was very interesting), spread out over a 10 year period would be $90 billion a year, hardly that big a difference in overall spending.
The War on Terror as a whole. I'm not saying that aid will decrease, there's just more incentive for it to do so. After all, these two countries are in serious need of rehab. I also support these nation's use of private contractors, btw, because I believe they do work better than the US can do, anyhow.
I'm also an optimist that these nations can pay for themselves. Iraq can use its oil revenue, and while that is volatile, it can provide a lot in a short period of time, especially with world prices this high. Afghanistan has the world's second largest copper reserves, but that country is a mess. I don't wish to speculate how much will be needed there, only except I think that country desparately needs more money and foreign troops soon.

Another point to make is that Kerry isn't going to count solely on the rollback of the tax cuts on the top 2% of wage earners for revenue increases. He's also planning on closing the corporate tax loopholes that allow companies to dump profits into offshore shell companies to avoid taxes--a plan he adopted from Edwards and a necessary part of any long term growth plan.
I don't see how such plan is even constitutional, though.

The War on Terror as a whole. I'm not saying that aid will decrease, there's just more incentive for it to do so. After all, these two countries are in serious need of rehab. I also support these nation's use of private contractors, btw, because I believe they do work better than the US can do, anyhow.
I'm also an optimist that these nations can pay for themselves. Iraq can use its oil revenue, and while that is volatile, it can provide a lot in a short period of time, especially with world prices this high. Afghanistan has the world's second largest copper reserves, but that country is a mess. I don't wish to speculate how much will be needed there, only except I think that country desparately needs more money and foreign troops soon.

But, if we're going to consider the whole of the War on Terror and are going to be open to speculation, then that raises the whole question of, "Who's next?" If we go into Iran, which we might, then that's more money. If we go into Syria, which we've been threatening to do for years, then that's more money. God forbid we go into North Korea, but it's certainly a possibility. That's a whopping amount of money guaranteed to make any $900 billion dollar health plan a mere drop in the bucket.

As for oil revenue, $20 billion of that has already gone missing. Where's the guarantee that this will turn around? And it can only provide that oil if it has the infrastructure to ship it, which it doesn't and the terrorists certainly aren't helping matters.

As for Afghanistan...well, that country's just screwed. It would take a miracle of Old Testament proportions to sort it out and get it running again. First the Soviets decimated it, then the Taliban decimated it, now we're decimating it...er, sorry, liberating it (I know, that was snide, but I couldn't help myself).

I don't see how such plan is even constitutional, though.

Well, it's as constitutional as the tax incentives and loopholes that allow it to happen in the first place. Kerry isn't saying they can't do it, just that they're not going to receive tax incentives for doing it or be able to somehow wiggle out of paying taxes because they're doing it.

I don't see how such plan is even constitutional, though.
What's unconstitutional about it? I can't even concieve of how it wouldn't be constitutional to tax money made in the US, as long as it involves insterstate commerce.

What's unconstitutional about it? I can't even concieve of how it wouldn't be constitutional to tax money made in the US, as long as it involves insterstate commerce.
Well, legally, it's tax money that's made in the US, but by a foreign entity. The money is immediatly in foreign hands as soon as its transacted. There are complex legalities, probably, but I can tell that disgruntled businessmen will argue this through their lawyers.

Even so, provsiions for the War on Terror will be less than last year. The initial provisions were $70 billion, plus $87 billion later. The part of those figures that were military will need to be replenished, but Iraq especially has the vast majority of its US aid unspent. It's a shame, but it at least means that the US won't need to fund them too much more.
Actually, I believe that you are incorrect on this matter. Bush had to ask for more money for Iraq BEFORE the next years allotment was installed. So if anything, they will be behind by at least that amount. I believe that the figure was around a $20 Billion shortfall. I will try to come up with the exact figure.

Meanwhile, there will still be over 120,000 troops in Iraq next year, so that will still constitute a fairly sizeable amount of money. Also, Bush has left himself no wiggle room. what happens when he pulls his terrorist list out of his pocket if he is re-elected?

BTW, the current US Debt is $7.3 Trillion, which means that Bush has spent $1.62 Trillion since taking office, and he has 3 more months left!!

Additional info:

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved of $126.1 billion for Iraq and an additional $25 billion is heading towards Congressional approval, for a total of $151.1 billion through this year. Congressional leaders have promised an additional supplemental appropriation after the election.

So I was under by a measely $5 Billion :rolleyes:

Well, legally, it's tax money that's made in the US, but by a foreign entity. The money is immediatly in foreign hands as soon as its transacted. There are complex legalities, probably, but I can tell that disgruntled businessmen will argue this through their lawyers.

Yes, but if your "foreign entity" is a company that's moved it's headquarters from the mainland US to the Carribean (or however that's spelled) yet still retains substantial holdings in the US and no longer pays taxes because it's CEO is sitting on a tropical beach somewhere, then that's hardly fair either.

BTW, the current US Debt is $7.3 Trillion, which means that Bush has spent $1.62 Trillion since taking office, and he has 3 more months left!!

Jesus! And I worry about my credit card balances...

But, if we're going to consider the whole of the War on Terror and are going to be open to speculation, then that raises the whole question of, "Who's next?" If we go into Iran, which we might, then that's more money. If we go into Syria, which we've been threatening to do for years, then that's more money. God forbid we go into North Korea, but it's certainly a possibility. That's a whopping amount of money guaranteed to make any $900 billion dollar health plan a mere drop in the bucket.

As for oil revenue, $20 billion of that has already gone missing. Where's the guarantee that this will turn around? And it can only provide that oil if it has the infrastructure to ship it, which it doesn't and the terrorists certainly aren't helping matters.

As for Afghanistan...well, that country's just screwed. It would take a miracle of Old Testament proportions to sort it out and get it running again. First the Soviets decimated it, then the Taliban decimated it, now we're decimating it...er, sorry, liberating it (I know, that was snide, but I couldn't help myself).
That's fine, but in Afghanistan, I think we're trying to help them more than the Soviets did.
Anyhow, such is the reality of war. I don't believe Bush is spending simply because he's happy to do it, but as I've argued time and time again, the political process is hijacked by lobbyists, also argued in Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. If the US needs to invade Syria, Iran, or some other country, however, I think the American public can make some sacrifices when it comes to spending. Besides, some tax increases wouldn't hurt. I'm an advocate of a $0.50 tax increase for a gallon of gas and diesel, except for certain people like truckers and buses. However, income taxes, under no circumstances, should be increased, or at least that's my philosophy.
If we needed to invade another country under Kerry, btw, I don't know what he'd do in regards to spending. He's untested at this matter. But I think it's fair to say that he'd probably hesitate to go in with US troops in the first place, favoring lots of diplomacy, and maybe sanctions.

Well, legally, it's tax money that's made in the US, but by a foreign entity. The money is immediatly in foreign hands as soon as its transacted. There are complex legalities, probably, but I can tell that disgruntled businessmen will argue this through their lawyers.Foreign entities still pay taxes on money earned in the US. If it were that easy to get out of paying taxes, no one would have a headquarters in the US, or in any country that required a corporation to pay taxes.

What the current loopholes allow companies to do, however, is establish a shell corporation in Bermuda or some other place that doesn't charge income tax, funnel profits earned in the US into that shell before paying taxes on them, and then declare the US corporation as having made no income that year. It's actually more complex than that--I'm giving the very short version. But the net result is the same--corporations making billions, often thanks to government contracts, are shipping the proceeds offshore and paying no taxes. Close that loophole and even if you cut the rate of taxation, you have a net increase in revenue.

Yes, but if your "foreign entity" is a company that's moved it's headquarters from the mainland US to the Carribean (or however that's spelled) yet still retains substantial holdings in the US and no longer pays taxes because it's CEO is sitting on a tropical beach somewhere, then that's hardly fair either.
[playing Devil's Advocate]
Doesn't matter. It's technically foreign owned. Even if that company has substantial assets in the US, the assets can be under one company, and the sales can be under another, foreign company. It may be unethical, but it's legal.
[end Devil's advocate]
BTW, the debt figure I wouldn't be worried about. Japan's government debt alone is 150% of their GDP. Compared with some nation's debt, I don't understand why some people raise so much alarm over this.

It means that, in order to insure around 40 million Americans with the premiums today, the cost will be extremely high. Even if it isn't $900 billion, it'll probably surpass the Defense budget, and maybe even Social Security.
What Social Security? Didn't you know that Bush has already cleaned out that account?

Oh and BTW, I hope you have enjoyed the War in Iraq so far? Here is another tid bit of info for you:

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household. Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation.

Damn waiter is going to bring the check now, and the guys in the next booth added their tab to yours!!

What Social Security? Didn't you know that Bush has already cleaned out that account?
I don't care. If I were the dictator of the US, I'd still deduct it from the paycheck, but have the individual stow it away into any investment he/she wants. The damn thing is too much trouble to have around, anyhow.
Oh and BTW, I hope you have enjoyed the War in Iraq so far? Here is another tid bit of info for you:

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household. Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation.


Assuming that liberal institutions are established, Iraq will end up feeding the economy more than it'd hurt it. It'd be complete in no later than twenty years, but with their oil reserves, I wouldn't be surprised if they helped the global economy much earlier. Ten years is certainly important, but in terms of finances, it's too short term.
BTW, I'm sure they said the same thing for the Vietnam War. It didn't happen, as economic activity during and after the war was the same as it was before the war: flat.

Anyhow, such is the reality of war. I don't believe Bush is spending simply because he's happy to do it, but as I've argued time and time again, the political process is hijacked by lobbyists, also argued in Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.

But it's not as if this is an unplanned war that we were thrust into. For all indications, Bush planned to take some sort of action against Iraq from the get-go, long before 9/11 gave him a sanity trump card of monumental proportions. It's one thing to be forced into a conflict and not have any idea how much the price tag will be. It's something else entirely to, in theory, plan a conflict, execute it and then still have no idea what the bottom line is. If I went into my boss and said, "Hey, look, I've got this great new idea that's going to revolutionize the way we do business and protect us from any sort of hostile encroachment from other organizations in perpetuity," she'd say, "That's great, I'd love to hear it, right me a report and give me a break down of costs." If I then said, "Well, that's just the thing, see. I've already done it. It didn't really work like I expected and we're going to have to keep doing it or I may have created a bigger problem than any possible problem I might have solved, but it's done. Oh, and here's the bill. By the way, I've already authorized the spending and we're going to have to do some serious fundraising to make up the differences in our budget and what we owe. And, well, since we're going to have to keep doing it for the foreseeable future, this is actually only the first bill. I'm not sure how much the next bill is, but I know it's coming." She'd fire me on the spot and rightly so. Why is it any diffrent for Bush?


If the US needs to invade Syria, Iran, or some other country, however, I think the American public can make some sacrifices when it comes to spending. Besides, some tax increases wouldn't hurt. I'm an advocate of a $0.50 tax increase for a gallon of gas and diesel, except for certain people like truckers and buses. However, income taxes, under no circumstances, should be increased, or at least that's my philosophy.

That's fine and I'm not begrudgind necessary spending in times of war, however, the question is that whole word "needs". It still hasn't been proven that we "needed" to invade Iraq. Wanted to, surely, but need to? However, people do need medical care at rates they can afford. Otherwise, you're just asking for trouble. Why isn't health care just as big a priority as these wars which we may or may not actually need to fight?


If we needed to invade another country under Kerry, btw, I don't know what he'd do in regards to spending. He's untested at this matter. But I think it's fair to say that he'd probably hesitate to go in with US troops in the first place, favoring lots of diplomacy, and maybe sanctions.

Okay, you know, we've been doing pretty good up until now with the baiting and the not doing it. This is a silly statement and you know it and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Like you said, who knows what Kerry would do? He might be more hesitant to enter a conflict for the simple reason he knows what it costs. Not just in dollars, but in lives. Remember (God, at this point how can any of us forget), Kerry actually served in combat whereas Bush...well, he did something. No one is too sure what, but I'm sure he did something. What, exactly, is the problem with diplomacy and, indeed, sanctions as opposed to "If you even look at us funny we're coming in there" military actions? In a rational world where we try to base our lives on laws, shouldn't the first option always be diplomacy?

It has precedent, at least the tax issue. In the 1930s, spending increased due in large part to FDR's "New Deal" programs. It didn't hurt the economy, as WWII woke up our industrial engine again.

It can be seriously contended that FDRs socialist reforms largely prevented economic recovery, and without the war the depression would not have ended.

As far as John F'n Kerry, the NTUF tallied up his campaign promises a few weeks ago and found he has proposed 65 new or expanded programs to spend more of your money, costing 770 billion over the next 5 years, and proposed 36 billion in cuts. That'll reduce the deficit in no time ! :rolleyes:

[playing Devil's Advocate]
Doesn't matter. It's technically foreign owned. Even if that company has substantial assets in the US, the assets can be under one company, and the sales can be under another, foreign company. It may be unethical, but it's legal.
[end Devil's advocate]

Okay, Mr. Devil's Advocate (terrible movie, by the way, I could buy Pacinno as Satan, but Keanu Reeves as a lawyer, c'mon, you can only suspend disbelief so far), so should companies be allowed to offshore? Can we demand a global action be taken if we're not even going to at least go through the motions of trying to clean up our own faulty policies first?


BTW, the debt figure I wouldn't be worried about. Japan's government debt alone is 150% of their GDP. Compared with some nation's debt, I don't understand why some people raise so much alarm over this.

Because it's not the way we do business. I'm not exactly sure it fills me we confidence to hear, "Because they do it in Japan."

Note to Steph:

I just came across this and I was in shock:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

The average family premium for health insurance has risen $2,777 to $9,549 USD since 2000, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

That is $12,722 Canadian Dollars!! And that is just the AVERAGE cost!!

Holy @#$#@#$

It can be seriously contended that FDRs socialist reforms largely prevented economic recovery, and without the war the depression would not have ended.

As far as John F'n Kerry, the NTUF tallied up his campaign promises a few weeks ago and found he has proposed 65 new or expanded programs to spend more of your money, costing 770 billion over the next 5 years, and proposed 36 billion in cuts. That'll reduce the deficit in no time ! :rolleyes:

Meaning $154 billion a year in revenue to be accounted for, whereas Bush's deficit spending won't go below $400 billion per year for the next four years. What's your point?

But it's not as if this is an unplanned war that we were thrust into. For all indications, Bush planned to take some sort of action against Iraq from the get-go, long before 9/11 gave him a sanity trump card of monumental proportions. It's one thing to be forced into a conflict and not have any idea how much the price tag will be. It's something else entirely to, in theory, plan a conflict, execute it and then still have no idea what the bottom line is. If I went into my boss and said, "Hey, look, I've got this great new idea that's going to revolutionize the way we do business and protect us from any sort of hostile encroachment from other organizations in perpetuity," she'd say, "That's great, I'd love to hear it, right me a report and give me a break down of costs." If I then said, "Well, that's just the thing, see. I've already done it. It didn't really work like I expected and we're going to have to keep doing it or I may have created a bigger problem than any possible problem I might have solved, but it's done. Oh, and here's the bill. By the way, I've already authorized the spending and we're going to have to do some serious fundraising to make up the differences in our budget and what we owe. And, well, since we're going to have to keep doing it for the foreseeable future, this is actually only the first bill. I'm not sure how much the next bill is, but I know it's coming." She'd fire me on the spot and rightly so. Why is it any diffrent for Bush?
Politics is an art form. Besides, the nice thing is that, when you're the US government, money is always available. It shouldn't be the reason for a war, and it's why I don't like the fact that Bush didn't tell us more about the geo-political ramifications. However, we're in Iraq. How are we gonna get out, and not endanger ourselves or the world?



That's fine and I'm not begrudgind necessary spending in times of war, however, the question is that whole word "needs". It still hasn't been proven that we "needed" to invade Iraq. Wanted to, surely, but need to? However, people do need medical care at rates they can afford. Otherwise, you're just asking for trouble. Why isn't health care just as big a priority as these wars which we may or may not actually need to fight?
It should be, but in the sense of making it more affordable. I've favored Bush's ideas of tort reform from the getgo, and I'm ashamed that they haven't been passed. States like Colorado have them, and malpractice insurance is rather low there.



Okay, you know, we've been doing pretty good up until now with the baiting and the not doing it. This is a silly statement and you know it and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Like you said, who knows what Kerry would do? He might be more hesitant to enter a conflict for the simple reason he knows what it costs. Not just in dollars, but in lives. Remember (God, at this point how can any of us forget), Kerry actually served in combat whereas Bush...well, he did something. No one is too sure what, but I'm sure he did something. What, exactly, is the problem with diplomacy and, indeed, sanctions as opposed to "If you even look at us funny we're coming in there" military actions? In a rational world where we try to base our lives on laws, shouldn't the first option always be diplomacy?
Just making a connection to the topic at hand. Besides, I'm not saying that Kerry would never consider war. I'm just saying he'd be far more hesitant, and probably return to the days when we didn't attack until attacked. When was the last war fought over that?

[playing Devil's Advocate]
Doesn't matter. It's technically foreign owned. Even if that company has substantial assets in the US, the assets can be under one company, and the sales can be under another, foreign company. It may be unethical, but it's legal.
[end Devil's advocate]
BTW, the debt figure I wouldn't be worried about. Japan's government debt alone is 150% of their GDP. Compared with some nation's debt, I don't understand why some people raise so much alarm over this.
Because you live in the US? If it is ok for Japan to be on the verge of bankruptcy, it is ok for the US?

Okay, Mr. Devil's Advocate (terrible movie, by the way, I could buy Pacinno as Satan, but Keanu Reeves as a lawyer, c'mon, you can only suspend disbelief so far), so should companies be allowed to offshore? Can we demand a global action be taken if we're not even going to at least go through the motions of trying to clean up our own faulty policies first?
A treaty could be tried, but remember, it's outside the US. US jurisdiction ends beyond our borders, except in our embassies.



Because it's not the way we do business. I'm not exactly sure it fills me we confidence to hear, "Because they do it in Japan."
It makes me confident. Japan is a reasonably well to do nation. They were the fastest growing G-7 nation last year, and of course, they seem to be infinitly wealthy. Did you know that the average Japanese wedding (excluding honeymoons) reaches $50,000?

Because you live in the US? If it is ok for Japan to be on the verge of bankruptcy, it is ok for the US?
That they are not.

Note to Steph:

I just came across this and I was in shock:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

The average family premium for health insurance has risen $2,777 to $9,549 USD since 2000, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

That is $12,722 Canadian Dollars!! And that is just the AVERAGE cost!!

Holy @#$#@#$
There's a reason behind this. Some is because HMOs are becoming increasinly bureaocratic. Some is because of high malpractice insurance premiums, due to excessive rewards in the case of malpractice. And some is because of a shortage of nurses, although the healthcare sector is second only to the resturant industry in job creation, and the nurse shortage should end soon.

Politics is an art form. Besides, the nice thing is that, when you're the US government, money is always available. It shouldn't be the reason for a war, and it's why I don't like the fact that Bush didn't tell us more about the geo-political ramifications. However, we're in Iraq. How are we gonna get out, and not endanger ourselves or the world?

Oh, I agree, we're there for the duration now, but it disturbs me how you are so certain Kerry spells economic ruin for the country but are so willing to write Bush a blank check.


It should be, but in the sense of making it more affordable. I've favored Bush's ideas of tort reform from the getgo, and I'm ashamed that they haven't been passed. States like Colorado have them, and malpractice insurance is rather low there.

Fine, then we should see a corresponding drop in health insurance rates in Colorado. Where is it? Even Colorado doesn't know how costs are going to be shifted and many companies are increasing premiums. I don't have a whole wealth of knowledge concerning Colorado's tort reform laws and their effectiveness regarding decreasing health insurance premiums, but I do know that at least some carriers have raised those premiums recently.


Just making a connection to the topic at hand. Besides, I'm not saying that Kerry would never consider war. I'm just saying he'd be far more hesitant, and probably return to the days when we didn't attack until attacked. When was the last war fought over that?

And that's such a bad thing?

A treaty could be tried, but remember, it's outside the US. US jurisdiction ends beyond our borders, except in our embassies.

Yes, it could be, although with Bush's foriegn policy track record it's questionable he could accomplish it even if he wanted to. That's not the point, however. The point is we can't even ask for a treaty or an agreement or, indeed, anything until we shore up the holes in our system that make it possible in the first place. It sort of sounds like you're okay with the US becoming a source of cheap labor.

Oh, I agree, we're there for the duration now, but it disturbs me how you are so certain Kerry spells economic ruin for the country but are so willing to write Bush a blank check.
Because I know that Bush never promised us to buy the moon. And he doesn't even have big spending plans. He has oodles of financial wiggle room compared to Kerry.



Fine, then we should see a corresponding drop in health insurance rates in Colorado. Where is it? Even Colorado doesn't know how costs are going to be shifted and many companies are increasing premiums. I don't have a whole wealth of knowledge concerning Colorado's tort reform laws and their effectiveness regarding decreasing health insurance premiums, but I do know that at least some carriers have raised those premiums recently.
Don't know what their health insurance premiums are like, but they have only 3 million people in that state. The rest of the nation cancels it out. Colorado, btw, I think takes an extreme approach. It caps pain and suffering at $250,000, and economic damages at $750,000. If such a program was implemented nationwide, healthcare costs would decelarate over a few years, and as malpractice insurance companies regain revenue, costs may dip.



And that's such a bad thing?
I prefer a proactive foreign policy, not a reactive one.

Yes, it could be, although with Bush's foriegn policy track record it's questionable he could accomplish it even if he wanted to. That's not the point, however. The point is we can't even ask for a treaty or an agreement or, indeed, anything until we shore up the holes in our system that make it possible in the first place. It sort of sounds like you're okay with the US becoming a source of cheap labor.
You think I'm saying that not closing these loopholes would make our standard of living decline?
Anyhow, we may have loopholes in the system, and indeed, I want them closed. However, it if were up to me, corporate taxes wouldn't exist. Many don't pay taxes as it is, anyhow. And to level the playing field, let's not tax small businesses, either.

Because I know that Bush never promised us to buy the moon. And he doesn't even have big spending plans. He has oodles of financial wiggle room compared to Kerry.

Er, stopping terrorism isn't "the moon"? Well, who am I to quibble.


Don't know what their health insurance premiums are like, but they have only 3 million people in that state. The rest of the nation cancels it out. Colorado, btw, I think takes an extreme approach. It caps pain and suffering at $250,000, and economic damages at $750,000. If such a program was implemented nationwide, healthcare costs would decelarate over a few years, and as malpractice insurance companies regain revenue, costs may dip.

Well, there's that "may" again. Tort reform might not be a bad thing, it's just not going to work as the only plank in a solvency plan.


I prefer a proactive foreign policy, not a reactive one.

Yes, but there's a difference between "proactive" and "needlessly hostile", I'm sure you'll agree.

Well, this has been fun, but I must go pick up relatives at the airport. If it's any consolation, PE, while I don't think you're right, I don't think it's because you're stupid or boring. :)

Er, stopping terrorism isn't "the moon"? Well, who am I to quibble.



Well, there's that "may" again. Tort reform might not be a bad thing, it's just not going to work as the only plank in a solvency plan.



Yes, but there's a difference between "proactive" and "needlessly hostile", I'm sure you'll agree.

Well, this has been fun, but I must go pick up relatives at the airport. If it's any consolation, PE, while I don't think you're right, I don't think it's because you're stupid or boring. :)
Thanks, Berk. I just want to touch on the healthcare thing quickly. I agree with you that tort reforms shouldn't be the only thing. I also like Bush's idea of giving small businesses the same discounts on health insurance corporations get (though Kerry may have similar plans). Anyhow, have fun with the relatives.