Reasons To Vote For Kerry: Things He Will Do To Improve America

[russ_watters]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ?

Most European countries have both significantly higher tax rates and significantly more services.

How about this, what if the average income per household(family) were $200,000 ? What do you think the Bell Curve would look like?

by Bell Curve, you mean IQ? It would help a lot.

Could the tax code be restructured so that such a redistribution could take occur?

Not unless we somehow manufacture more money. The average is the sum total of all incomes divided by the number of families. Redistributing wealth does not change the average.

What would the poverty level be in such a case?

Depends on how one chooses to define "poverty." Using income brackets, the poverty level is perpetually 20% by definition. It is interesting to see how the average or the limits of each income bracket has changed historically: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html . In 2002, for example, the upper limit of the bottom 5th was $17,900 while in 1967 it was $13,700 (inflation adjusted - 2nd table). Someone right on that line in 2002 was 23% "richer" than someone on that line in 1967.

The Census Bureau actually uses a complicated formula for poverty, though it is based largely on income vs need (ie, poverty level is different if you have 1 child than if you have 2). http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html is some info.

 

[russ_watters]

Really, compared to who the rest of the world? There is a shred of truth in what you say but in the cut is the siphoning off of these 'riches' to further line the pockets of those who least need it.

I'll need to look for the data so I don't put my foot in my mouth again, but AFAIK, the US compares favorably to western Europe (though not near the best because of socialism), and is far above the rest of the world.

Again, the knife cuts both ways - mild socialism causes an artificially low poverty line while at the same time causing high unemployment. Take it further and you can decrease unemployment to near zero, at the cost of dropping a large portion of your country into poverty (USSR).

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the poop.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the top quintile bore 65% of the taxes. That's now lower with Bush's selective tax cuts.

... higher than its 25 year low of 57%.

That because increases have always been enacted to offset inflation, which is perfectly fair. That is all an increase should do. There is no mandate to enact a living wage. People who are supporting themselves should not be working minimum wage jobs. Heck, the first job I ever had paid $12/hr. It isn't that difficult to find decent money if you really look. Even when I have taken lower paying jobs, I was always promoted quickly and soon made decent money.

In high school I was a temp making between $8 and $13. [in most parts of the country] There is no excuse for someone to be trying to support themselves or their family on minimum wage.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that it's more important for high school kids to have jobs than it is for self-supporting adults to have jobs? No high school kid I know goes hungry because they don't have a part-time job. In fact, most of them have jobs so they can buy clothes and CDs (I didn't say ALL, I said most). Wouldn't it be more useful for society to raise the wage a little and give adult wage-earners a chance to support themselves and their kids? And at the same time, you're getting employees who are dependent on their jobs, and maybe a more hard-working and reliable.

I really think you're looking at it backwards - Kids take low skill, low pay jobs because they are low skill, low pay jobs: kids can't do anything else and aren't worth anything else. If you suddenly doubled the pay, would the real value of the job be any higher? Adults should work higher pay, higher skill jobs because adults should have the skills to be worth he extra money. You don't somehow become worth more just because you need more money to live on. Freedom means you have to earn what you get.

You make it sound like these jobs are abundant "as long as you look hard enough." That's not correct.

No - jobs are abundant (and well paying) as long as you work hard enough (and smart enough).

I agree--I don't think any employer should pay an employee more than they're worth.

Then why did you say McDonalds should pay more for adults to do the same job as kids? What makes those adults worth more money? It sounds like you are combining "need" with "worth."

I take it you've never had to work at McDonald's or some other crappy fast-food or retail job. I have. I earned $4.25 an hour (minimum wage back then). I know I worked harder there than I ever did at any other job, and I deserved more than $4.25 an hour.

Just because some jobs take effort doesn't make them worth more more than another job. Anyone (and I mean anyone) can do that job. It requires no skill or knowledge (and not even much in the way of an IQ). That's the whole reason its so well suited for kid. Not everyone can be a doctor. It takes skill and knowledge.

Ripping people off? You don't sound very grateful that McDonald's gave you a job. Where does this attitude of entitlement come from? You people act like it's your birthright as an American to live a middle-class lifestyle. God forbid you actually have to work for something. An employee is not paid based on how hard he works. He is paid based on how much he is worth. Presumably had you quit and not been replaced, McDonald's would not have lost much more than $5 or so an hour. Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees. There are also overhead costs such as lease and food-service licensing and franchise fees.

Its the new American (Democratic) Way, loseyourname and it sickens me - and is harming our country.

 

[Evo]

Income stats are tough (mine were from the census bureau): I'm both an individual and a household. I would certainly say an individual making $76k is upper-middle class. But not a "household" (by my definition, a faimly of 3 or more).

I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle.

 

[loseyourname]

Jeez, Elizabeth. Would you relax? No one here seems to getting angry about people having dissenting opinions other than you. I'm also not a female. Since you're so keen on very carefully reading and never misinterpreting another's posts, I've mentioned about 73 times now that I have a girlfriend.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, I think I look a lot like Scarlett Johansson. Now that's funny.

 

[Artman]

Ask anyone who works a fast food job how much they make. If the minimum wage is $5.15/hr in their state, I guarantee you they're not starting at $7.00/hr. I used to make minimum wage (many years ago, thank goodness) and I went hungry trying to live on that amount. It just doesn't seem right to me that someone working full time (no matter what they do) should still be going hungry--not in this country. Yes, raising the minimum wage may hurt some small businesses, but it is not going to put McDonald's or Burger King out of business. Raising the price of a Big Mac by 10 cents isn't going to hurt anyone. Is $7.00 an hour really too much to ask?

I looked back to try and find your initial response to the overall question. I did not find one.

I believe this was your first response. I can agree with the idea of your entire post. The problem is, how do you limit the increase to those who can afford it, such as the burger giants?

Seriously, I still would like to read your response to the overall question of this thread: What do you believe that Kerry will do? If I missed it, please direct me to it (it's a little hard to find using a dialup modem. Mr. Kerry has a bill pending to install infrastructure for high speed internet in low income housing, unfortunately I am not quite low enough income to be in that demographic, so I can't afford high speed internet. Sorry, couldn't resist the dig at Mr Kerry. )

 

[loseyourname]

You know what sickens me? Elitist snobs who don't have the tiniest bit of compassion for other "imperfect" human beings.

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect.

Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine.

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405. Do you know who fixed them? Me. Not the government, not my parents (they wanted to, but I wouldn't let them), not even a compassionate friend. Me. That's called personal responsibility and its important to me. I'd rather fail trying than have success handed to me on a platter.

I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle.

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

 

[Evo]

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed.

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed.

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so.

Thanks. "Elitist snob" is a pretty common reaction to conservative ideas though. It doesn't bother me (thought the death of personal responsibility scares the hell out of me).

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine.

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread. I never mentioned your financial situation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you own a mansion.

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405.

Somehow, in the scheme of things, I really doubt that your "mistakes" would upset me that much.

That's called personal responsibility and its important to me.

It's very important to me, too. It's important to a lot of people who aren't Republicans, believe it or not.

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

I bought my first house when I was 27 (and single). I just sold last month for a huge profit. Does that make me more "personally responsible" than you? No, of course it doesn't. My situation is different than yours, just like the guy working the $6.00 an hour job is different than yours. I don't believe in hand-outs either--God knows I never got a free ride. There are people out there, however, who aren't as intelligent, or have physical or mental limitations. Are they somehow worth less as people because they didn't own a house when they were 30, or because they're adults and have a minimum wage job? Hey, if they don't want to work, then I don't have much sympathy for them either. I have problems with the welfare system in this country, too. But there are lots of people who aren't quite smart enough to succeed in college and become doctors or lawyers. They have jobs, and they work just as hard as you and I do. They don't deserve to be screwed over. Be thankful that you've been gifted with enough intelligence and enough drive to make a comfortable life for yourself, and stop ripping on everyone else who isn't quite that fortunate.

 

[Artman]

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread.

I don't think you know Russ or others on this thread very well. You should refrain from name-calling it does nothing to further your point of view, which I am still waiting to read.

What do you think Mr. Kerry will do as President? You appear to be a Kerry supporter, what are your expectatons?

 

[amp]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

 

[JD]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both!

 

[Artman]

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both!

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

 

[JD]

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

We can effectively ignore everything that is said before election so, once they are elected, we won't be as dissappointed as we would have been had we compared their promises list with what they are doing now.
The thing is, whether the gaping chasm is pointed out to them or not, a way will be found to make us feel good about such things as hospital closures, high inflation and so on.

It would be naive to think that any system can provide everyone with everything they need. But we could have a worse system than we have.

 

[amp]

Actually, said with optimism.

 

[JD]

A slightly worrying basis for a country's political system.

 

[Evo]

I am not "name-calling" by calling someone elitist. If you want to take on the subject of name-calling, perhaps you (and the moderators of this forum) should deal with the individual who called someone a "dickhead" in another thread yeasterday. Ooops, I forgot, that person is right-wing just like you, so they can say whatever they want and get away with it.

Personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. I looked yesterday when you mentioned this and could not find the post, the poster may have thought better of it and edited it out.

You may report a post if you feel it is inappropriate and a mentor will take action if necessary.

I know it is hard to remain calm when discussing certain issues, but again I ask that everyone stop and rethink your posts before you hit "submit". Remember, people may be more willing to listen your your views if you present them with a bit less hostility.

 

[russ_watters]

It's very important to me, too. It's important to a lot of people who aren't Republicans, believe it or not.

...I don't believe in hand-outs either--God knows I never got a free ride.

Could you explain this in light of your assertion that McDonald's should pay adults more money for doing the same job as kids? It appears contradictory.

There are people out there, however, who aren't as intelligent, or have physical or mental limitations. Are they somehow worth less as people because they didn't own a house when they were 30, or because they're adults and have a minimum wage job?

If by "worth less" you mean is the job they do worth less than the job a doctor (for example) does, then absolutely.

But there are lots of people who aren't quite smart enough to succeed in college and become doctors or lawyers. They have jobs, and they work just as hard as you and I do. They don't deserve to be screwed over.

So these people deserve handouts? I thought you said you don't believe in handouts?

Be thankful that you've been gifted with enough intelligence and enough drive to make a comfortable life for yourself, and stop ripping on everyone else who isn't quite that fortunate.

How is expecting people to do work worthy of their pay "ripping on" people? Are you saying that those who aren't intelligent or driven enough to "make a comfortable life" should get handouts?

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. I looked yesterday when you mentioned this and could not find the post, the poster may have thought better of it and edited it out.

You may report a post if you feel it is inappropriate and a mentor will take action if necessary.

You may want to double-check on that. I just did, and the post is still there. It is the third from the last post on on "Why Bush Should Not be Re-Elected." (submitted by loseyourname).

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Artman]

I am not "name-calling" by calling someone elitist.

Sorry, I disagree. It's a deroggatory label.

If you want to take on the subject of name-calling, perhaps you (and the moderators of this forum) should deal with the individual who called someone a "dickhead" in another thread yeasterday.

And did it further their argument, or just make them look immature?

Ooops, I forgot, that person is right-wing just like you, so they can say whatever they want and get away with it.

I don't align myself politically with either side, but I guess I do tend toward the right in some things.

I am not required to respond to you about my beliefs.

Of course you're not. I asked you to do so, I am interested in your opinion (believe it or not).

Why? For one, you cannot tell me what to do. Second, no matter what I say it will be ripped to shreds (with arguments supported by skewed sources and biased websites), I will be misquoted, and nothing will come of it. Why should I bother wasting my time arguing for nothing? Thanks, but I've got better things to do. Come November, I will be voting for John Kerry, and you will be voting for Cowboy George. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. End of story.

If you had read my previous posts in this thread, you would see that I am trying to approach this question with an open mind. I do not vote based on a party leaning or slanted bias. I never have. If I feel Mr Kerry would be a better President then Mr Bush, he would get my vote.

What I am asking is for strongly based opinions and backup that can convince me that Mr. Kerry can do at least some of what he has promised. I am serious in this. I have given a website that lists Mr Kerry's Bills proposed to the Senate many of which I agree with in principle, but most of which are caught up in committees. I can see that Mr Kerry appears to be a decent man, but what I am asking is: can he accomplish his goals?

 

[loseyourname]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=273809&postcount=81

Right there. I got a little frustrated at being patronized by a forum full of people that don't answer questions, and I quickly apologized. What's worse for the forum? That, or harping on about someone mistakenly thinking you once worked at McDonald's for three pages.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, while we're still on the subject of false assumptions, I do not consider myself right-wing. My positions on economics and social welfare are right-wing (and these are very important issues to me), but outside of that, I'm fairly liberal, especially on the environment and civil liberties. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election and I have no idea who I'm voting for in this one, though I am leaning Bushward.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I disagree. It's a deroggatory label.

So do I, but I'm letting it go. I recommend everyone else do the same.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

What's worse for the forum? That, or harping on about someone mistakenly thinking you once worked at McDonald's for three pages.

Yup, it's all my fault that you used foul language. You got me there. Actually, I trust the wonderful moderators of this forum will delete your post, as many of us find that kind of language offensive. Thank you!

 

[loseyourname]

It's deleted. I will apologize for a second time, despite the fact that you never even posted in that particular thread. I obviously had no intention of offending you.

 

[loseyourname]

Yup, it's all my fault that you used foul language. You got me there.

Wait! I know the answer to this one. Can you quote me on that? I never said that.

 

[russ_watters]

Once again, Russ, please quote me where I said that. I said they don't deserve to be screwed over--I did not say they they deserve handouts. Those two phrases do not mean the same thing.

I am not required to respond to you about my beliefs.

Here's the problem Elizabeth. You make statements that honestly do seem to say one thing, but you aren't explicit and you refuse to be explicit about what you mean. Maybe its unintentional and maybe not, but either way, it appears dishonest. If you do wish for honest debate, you can help avoid getting yourself upset about us misinterpreting you by being specific about what your opinion is. Make specific, positive statements of your opinion. Otherwise, further debate is utterly useless: instead of saying "I did not say that" when asked a question, answer the question. Insead of saying 'I don't believe this' and 'I don't believe that' tell us what you do believe.

At this point, whether we continue the debate and perhaps clear up misunderstandings about each other (and God forbid, maybe reach some common ground) is up to you.

 

[Evo]

Let's see if we can get this thread back to the original topic "Things Kerry will do", or I will close the thread.

 

[Artman]

Originally Posted by amp
1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

Artman, you want my beliefs? Here they are above, well-said and concisely put by amp. Good enough for you? Buh-bye.

Thank you.

Now don't get hot over this. These are not attacks on your opinion, these are serious questions from someone who wants the get at the facts.

Can either Elizabeth1405 or Amp or someone else give me some basis for these beliefs other than Mr. Kerry's word that he might accomplish some of these?

For instance, has he proposed in his platform a method for achieving items 1 and 2 together? The two are often mutually exclusive.

Items 3 & 5 he may be able to accomplish, but what are his proposed methods?

How does he intend to pay for Item 4?

Item 6 seems to me well within his capabilities. I also believe this to be important to him.

 

[loseyourname]

Is John Kerry making it up as he goes along? The presumptive Democratic nominee, who has been raging about the Bush economy for more than 15 months, was recently asked to tie his campaign proposals into a succinct and compelling agenda. "Succinct agenda," Mr. Kerry replied. "We're going to balance the budget. We're going to cut the deficit in half in four years. We're going to create 10 million jobs. And we're going to provide health care to all Americans? How's that?" Well, which is it going to be? Are you going to balance the budget? Or are you going to cut the deficit in half? The difference is only about $250 billion a year.

Full Article

 

[russ_watters]

Evo - fair enough.

[switching gears]

Artman & loseyourname - money for proposed spending is always a toughie for both sides. Healthcare, defense, and balancing the budget require more income for the government or cuts in other places. When Kerry says things like the quote above and also says he'll "roll back" already in place cuts, what I'm hearing is that with him in office we'll have some major tax increases.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm reading over his site right now, trying to figure out exactly what his economic plan is, but it's still pretty vague. There are a couple of things that just don't make any sense, though.

- He says he'll bring jobs back to America by closing tax loopholes for overseas employees. But even that is done, overseas wages will still be so much lower that it will still be more profitable to ship unskilled jobs overseas.

- He says he will create jobs and encourage investment by lowering corporate taxes for 99% of all businesses, but this will not increase the deficit. In fact, his plan will take in an additional $12 billion each year. The only way to do this is to tax the hell out of the largest corporations, which are the ones investing the most money and creating the most jobs.

- He says he'll cut health-care premiums by $1000. What does this mean? $1000 per year per worker? There's another tax increase, but is this part of the increase for the top 1% of businesses, or the top 2% of households.

- Back to the cutting of business taxes. Does he realize that the owners of the more successful 99% of businesses for whom he is cutting taxes are often in the top 1% of income earners? Cutting their taxes in one place and raising them in another isn't going to do a whole lot of good. It certainly isn't going to create any new jobs.

- He'll create universal access to college by giving a tax credit of up to $4000 for 4 years. Why? The Hope credit already goes up to $6000 for 4 years. A student can make $1000 in a year working a minimum wage job for 4 hours a week. If anything, expand federal work study programs.

- He says he'll lower corporate taxes by 5%. First off, this is a bit misleading (or at least ambiguous), as he is lowering it from 35 to 33.25%, not to 30%. I'd still kind of like to know how lowering corporate taxes like this is going to generate an additional $12 billion of revenue, but he doesn't seem interested in explaining how he will achieve all of these things.

- One final thing he doesn't mention is that all of these proposals can only be achieved through legislation. If congress remains Republican, how the heck is he going to get any of this passed?