TheAgitator.com
Kerry Moves Starboard
Thursday, April 8th, 2004In his second major policy address of the general election campaign, the Massachusetts Democrat harked back to the fiscal and political policies of President Bill Clinton, sacrificing social spending to the goal of reducing the budget deficit by half in five years and eventually eliminating it by raising taxes on the rich and restraining government spending.Kerry pulled back on promises made during the Democratic primary crunch to immediately make preschool universal and cover the cost of college for students who provide national services, such as volunteering. Both programs would cover fewer people than originally billed. Sarah Bianchi, the campaign’s policy director, said Kerry is also cutting in half a proposal to send $50 billion to cash-strapped states. The Democratic candidate has been under relentless attack by the Bush campaign as a big spender.
There are some deficiencies, here. He hasn’t offered specifics yet. But at least Kerry’s motioning in the right direction. I like to hear things like “sacrificing social spending.” Especially in a campaign. Especially from a Democrat. Yes, the tax hike plan is troubling. But I’m not so sure there’s much of a difference between a modest tax hike and massive deficit spending.
You forget that in current liberal newspeak, tax cuts are considered spending. So when Kerry means he intends to cut spending, what he really means is that he intends to increase taxes.
And current conservative newspeak is fiscal responsibility really means spend like a drunken sailor
Either way we’re screwed.
…and most politicians believe that a spending “cut” is a reduction in spending increases. In the mean time, don’t forget the Muslim’s want to kill us! Debate it all ya want.
meek
“But at least Kerry’s motioning in the right direction.”
NOW THAT’S FUNNNY!!!
“I like to hear things like “sacrificing social spending.”"
And they like telling you what you want to hear. A win/win situation if I ever saw one….
“Kerry pulled back on promises made during the Democratic primary crunch …”
Is it unreasonable to assume that if a politician immediately reneges on promises he made to win a primary, he would just as quickly renege on promises he made to win an election?
I’m quite sure this is just lip service on Kerry’s part. One also never knows when Kerry might change his position.
Why is it always a five year plan?
Word Nimon. Just once I would like to see a president come out with a plan that will be completed during their first term in office. If it works they get a second term, if not, well thank you come again.
Plan’s should be limited to no more then 4 years. If you cant get it done during your first term, thats it game over.
I’m quite sure this is just lip service on Kerry’s part. One also never knows when Kerry might change his position.
Actually there’s a very precise mathematical formula. With X being Kerry’s poll numbers today and Y being Kerry’s future poll numbers, whenever X>Y John Kerry will change his position.
Oddly enough, this applies to George W. Bush too. As well as [insert major-party politician here].
Seriously Radley … are you drunk? This guy changes his position on things faster than anyone. Next week it’ll be completely different.
At least with Bush we know what we get. And I still believe he’d be a better 2nd term President because he won’t have to be ‘bipartisan’ in the attempt to get votes. For all you know, on Nov 9th (after a win) he could start slashing federal spending.
1.) At least with Bush we know what we get.
2.) For all you know, on Nov 9th (after a win) he could start slashing federal spending.
Logically these don’t seem to go together, James. If we really know what we’re getting with Bush, shouldn’t we know for certain whether he’ll slash spending on Nov. 9th?
I’m not sure which is more disturbing - that fact that anyone believes anything either Bush or Kerry says or that fact that Jason and James D are debating this point at such God-awful hours.
Are you two vampires?
“The Democratic candidate has been under relentless attack by the Bush campaign as a big spender.”
I guess it takes one to know one.
I might believe Kerry and the Dems … when Bill Clinton gives us the middle-class tax cut he promised.
Today’s promise from the Donkeys is about as good as that one.
I wouldn’t stake my life on the slashing federal spending part, no. But I think it’s at least a possibility. There are NO guarantees of ANYTHING (including this nation’s security) with Kerry in charge.
And no, we’re not vampires, I just happen to live on Pacific time (Arizona never changes clocks so we’re on PST).
I make no claims for James…but invite me in. Really. Do it.
You do make a fair argument Jason, but don’t you think it’ll be easier to get a Republican to cut spending over a Democrat?
ARIZONA!!! Everyone knows that place is riddle with vampires. Don’t you watch the movies!!
I like to hear things like “sacrificing social spending.”
That’s why he says things like that - no other reason.
Could anybody give me one thing that’s on Kerry’s agenda besides being president? I suppose he wants to stick it to the rich guy, so he can spread it around to his far richer buddies, but there doesn’t seem to be any focus beyond getting the power and schmoozing more with unnamed foriegn leaders.
Kerry is a politician.
He’ll say whatever he believes is necessary to win votes. Once in office, he will do whatever he needs to do to stay in office and reward those special interests that put him in office.
Bush did the same during his campaign. Whatever happened to his promise of “no nation-building?” Smaller government? Now Bush is in office, he’ll say and do whatever he must to stay there.
C’mon, Radley. How long have you been watching our political process at work?
I’m as much against Bush’s domestic policy as the next guy, but I feel I should answer this one.
“Bush did the same during his campaign. Whatever happened to his promise of “no nation-building?”"
Ummmm, 9/11. He had to do something about Afghanistan. After taking out the gov’t he had to stay to rebuild. Maybe you disagree about Iraq, but 9/11 colored his decision on that one too. I believe that he felt he had no choice. Or at least only one good choice.
“You do make a fair argument Jason, but don’t you think it’ll be easier to get a Republican to cut spending over a Democrat?”
Nope. I think they both believe it’s okay to spend like there’s no tomorrow. The GOP of today is not the GOP of yesterday, but they’re still milking yesterday’s image for all it’s worth.
Ok, let me redefine the question then: Won’t it be easier to at least find some fiscal conservatives among Republicans in Congress than with Democrats? They could say “Ok, enough BS … you got your second term … no more bi-partisan BS …. time to cut the crap.” That’s at least a minor possibility … with the Democrats there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of cutting spending …
James: I think that the number of fiscal conservatives in the GOP’s House and Senate delegations dwindles each election cycle, to be replaced by “fresh-faced” (read “young, unprincipled and functionally retarded”) politicians. The GOP leadership, much like its Democratic counterpart would were the tables reversed, wants to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
In answer to your redefined question: yes, it will probably be easier to find fiscal conservatives among the GOP (for a while anyway). But a question you didn’t ask is, will it matter if you manage to find a handful of fiscal conservatives in the GOP while on your Capitol Hill scavenger hunt? The answer to that is “no.” That’s because the GOP leadership might as well be Democratic for all its concern about fiscal policy. Both parties are liberal now; liberal in this case meaning “it’s okay to tax the hell out of the populace and spend their money on anything our members’ districts would profit from,” not “gays are awesome and Al Franken is my hero.”
Don’t let the socially conservative window dressing fool you. True conservatism in the GOP is dead. Better to vote Libertarian, or not at all, than to vote for either of the Twin Behemoths.
Then if they are both big spenders, and I could give a shit about the deficit, then I’ll take the one that keeps taxes lower … that still means Bush. (I’ll leave defense out of the picture for a second because I still think defense is always stronger under a Republican). I’m sorry, I guess I’m not ‘principled’ enough to vote Libertarian and throw my vote away yet.
James - thanks for the slam at the end there, buddy. I don’t know what prompted you to adopt that sort of attitude in this previously rational discussion, unless maybe you’re related to one of those “fresh-faced” politicians.
Keep in mind that any vote that isn’t for the winner can be considered a “throw away” vote. If you vote for Bush and Kerry wins, how can you tell me with a straight face that your vote mattered any more than a vote for the Libertarian candidate? Or, for that matter, the Natural Law or Socialist or Communist candidate? Your logic doesn’t allow for anyone but the winner to matter.
Don’t forget that while your taxes are lower right now, someone will have to come in and raise them later because the guy who wants to “keep your taxes low” is running a gigantic deficit that you don’t care about. Whether you care about it or not, though, low taxes + deficit = higher taxes in the long run. Ever seen somebody run up a huge credit card tab and think of it as income? That’s basically what the government is doing right now. The only difference between the individual doing this and the government doing this is that the government has more guns to protect itself from creditors.
Of course, we could all just say “fuck the deficit” and watch everything collapse. When we say debt doesn’t matter to us, what’s to stop everyone else from saying the same thing?
Calm down Jason, I wasn’t slamming anyone. Notice I stick around on Radley’s site regardless of what I disagree with? It’s because I do think most of the people here are pretty smart and right 60% of the time. I wouldn’t be here if it were a bunch of liberals or 100% pro-Republicans. I ache every time I see the government create some more worthless spending.
I DO think that voting for anything other than Dem or Rep is throwing your vote away. I don’t LIKE that reality but the fact is most people in this country do not consider a 3rd party candidate as even a possibility. Even Radley is voting Dem instead of libertarian, what does that tell you?
And when I say ‘F*ck the deficit’ I fully expect something will have to be done later to fix it. But how about that something being firing lazy, worthless govertment workers and cutting back spending … raising taxes isn’t the only solution despite what the Dems say. Like your credit card example, I could just cut back my monthly spending and then my monthly income will allow me to eventually pay off my credit card, right? I don’t need a ‘raise’ to pay off the cards (hope my boss isn’t reading this).
I’m plenty calm, James - I just don’t think that putting the word principled in quotes when referring to a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a good way to keep a rational discussion going. It *is* a slam, because it’s meant to denigrate. If I’m wrong and it isn’t meant to denigrate, you should probably be more careful in your choice of words and punctuation, so as to make your meaning clearer.
When you said you believe a vote for anyone not Democrat or Republican is a throw-away, you merely repeated what you’ve already expressed. You didn’t answer the question I posed, however: if you vote for Bush and Kerry wins (or vice versa), would you still be able to tell me you didn’t throw your vote away, that your vote mattered more than a vote for a Libertarian candidate? The logic that you use - not enough people consider third-party candidates a possibility - is the reason the Twin Behemoths have a death grip on power. It’s also the reason so many of the lazy government workers and enormous spending programs you lament are allowed to stick around. Without competition, there is no incentive for the big parties to improve. They know that the herd logic so many people use reduces to nil any chance of them being held accountable for their actions.
So far as what Radley’s vote tells me - all it tells me is for whom Radley voted. Nothing more, nothing less.
I fully agree with you that cutting spending and eliminating wasteful government jobs is a great idea. I think we ought to enact those changes immediately. The problem is that our overspending is so entrenched that we can’t get rid of it. None of our politicians have the will to cut spending because the constituencies they “serve” because they’d stand no chance of being re-elected. Even if by some miracle we are able to cut spending to reasonable levels within 10 years, the interest on our debt will still have continued to pile up over that time, compounding every year. When your debt grows faster than your income, you’re placed into a tight situation. Taxes will have to be raised then to make up the difference - unless we just decide to collect tribute from our Middle Eastern provinces instead. (That’s a joke, folks.)
Our spending habits have dug us a hole so deep that, outside some miraculous economic windfall, we can’t get out of it by simply cutting spending. Taxes will have to be raised, either now or in the future. I don’t like that at all, James - I’m no Democrat and I’m certainly no liberal. But then again, I don’t like the fact that I am being forced to pay for previous generations being completely irresponsible, either. At least with credit card debt you’re paying for your *own* irresponsibility -you have no one to blame but yourself. In this case I have no one to blame but the people who refused to to do anything about their “leaders” handing out cash to anyone who asked for it; even worse, I have nothing I can do about it because no one else wants to realize that the Twin Behemoths are the root of the problem.