Kerry Plan for a Stronger America

xlt66 · Post by **xlt66** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:44 pm

Kerry will make us as strong as France!

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-1 Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-2 Stealth Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-14

(H.R. 5803, CQ, Vote #319, 10/26/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-15

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-16

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Patriot Missiles

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Trident Missile System

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against M-1 Abrams Tank

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle

(S. 3189, QC, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2

Stealth Bomber

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)

(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)

(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)

(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)

(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)

(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)

Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate

Missile Defense

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91)

(S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91)

(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91)

(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92)

(S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92)

(S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93)

(S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94)

(S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95)

(S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95)

(S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96)

(S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98)

(S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98)

(S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96)

(S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

In 1984, when Kerry was running for U.S. Senate, Kerry clearly stated his

position on defense programs. He called for the elimination or reduction in

the following programs: (Here are the actual documents)

* Cancel MX Missile

* Cancel B-1 Bomber

* Cancel Anti-satellite system

* Cancel Strategic Defense Initiative

* Reduce by 50% Tomahawk Cruise Missile

* Cancel AH-64 "Apache" Helicopters

* Cancel Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD)

* Cancel Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

* Cancel AV-8B "Harrier"

* Cancel F-15 Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel F-14A Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel F-14D Fighter Aircraft

* Cancel Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile

* Cancel Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile

Kerry has long held views against the U.S. Military. When Kerry unsuccessful

ran for Congress in 1972, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune wrote:

"On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a

different kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against

military appropriations."

Two years earlier when when Kerry had just returned from Vietnam and was

running for congress, Kerry was interviewed by the Harvard Crimson on

February 13, 1970. Kerry had the following to say:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see

our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United

Nations."

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:53 pm

i notice there's nothing on his record since 2000. i presume since 2001 he's become a born again hawk.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:10 am

xlt66 wrote: "I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see

our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United

Nations."

If it was "with the agreement of a majority of the U.N." it would be a very

good idea. That is the first thing that I've heard that makes me lean toward

either Kerry or Bush.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:50 am

the U.N. is a nice idea gone bad.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:57 am

plazul wrote: This voting record, like all voting records, is misleading.

I had thought there might be more to the "record" than met the eye. I'm not

in the U.S.A., BTW, so hear really very little of campaign details. All I can find

in today's Daily Telegraph is "Bush has largest budget deficit in US history" -

which, to be fair, is possibly not *entirely* Mr. Bush's fault.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:15 am

plazul wrote: Bush wants us to believe that the account deficit is all because of the "Clinton recession" and 9-11. Bilge. Don't take my word for it. If you're interested, try to Google up an objective analysis of the impact of the Bush tax cuts which have caused major revenue shortfalls and will continue to do so if they're made permanent.

Ha! Ha! You should hear our dear leader Benito B liar the faults of previous

governments. Really funny, I think not. They (politicians) do seem to be

similar the world over. Me? I'd replace them with ordinary people yanked

from real life to serve terms of (say) 7 years - much as people here in

Britian are picked to serve on juries.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:37 am

plazul wrote:

The intent here is to make Kerry look weak on defense. He's not.
i'd be interested in counterposing voting records that back that assertion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:43 am

plazul wrote: Bush wants us to believe that the account deficit is all because of the "Clinton recession" and 9-11. Bilge. Don't take my word for it. If you're interested, try to Google up an objective analysis of the impact of the Bush tax cuts which have caused major revenue shortfalls and will continue to do so if they're made permanent.
nonsense! the major revenue shortfalls are a result of the downturn in the economy. clinton cruised along merrily with one of the most fruitful economic intervals this country has ever seen - and the government reaped greater tax revenues than it had ever seen. the budget 'surplus' was a tiny blip, that both clinton, and the incoming bush, believed (as all $#@! politicians believe) to be a singular trend that would never change - thus the predictions at the end of clinton's presidency and the start of bush's that the government would have trillions in surplus in ten years. all balderdash.

the top of the economic cycle peaked shortly before the end of clinton's presidency. these cycles are well established, and there's little that the federal reserve, the president, or anyone else can do to significantly affect them. the downturn was inevitable - it was just a matter of when. this downturn started not long before 9/11, and 9/11 had a *palpable* effect upon the mood of the country, which influenced the downward direction of the economy. i don't think anyone can dispute that 9/11 pushed the economy way, way down.

lower individual earnings, fewer people working, lower tax revenues - by far lower tax revenues than that accumulated by the tax cuts.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:46 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Ha! Ha! You should hear our dear leader Benito B liar the faults of previous

governments. Really funny, I think not. They (politicians) do seem to be

similar the world over. Me? I'd replace them with ordinary people yanked

from real life to serve terms of (say) 7 years - much as people here in

Britian are picked to serve on juries.
i am, remarkably enough, in complete agreement with you here. i too have had a similar thought. i'd want some form of vetting however - there are simply some people who are far too dumb, and far too lacking in (genuine) leadership abilities to run a nation.

now, a caucus government - instead of a president, a council of 13 randomly chosen citizens. the majority vote determines the decisions. that could work.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:49 am

plazul wrote: If we ever get real campaign finance reform ordinary people might actually have a shot at running for political office, including the presidency. When that happens democracy will have finally arrived.
if by 'campaign finance reform' you mean *any* person of *any* political bent (political party irrelevant and in fact discouraged) gets an equal share of campaign funds, then i'd agree. until we have more than a two-party lockstep, true freedom of political choice will be a dream rather than a reality.

problem: imagine how many people would run for president, thus diluting the share each candidate winds up getting down to say $50!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:55 am

anastrophe wrote: i am, remarkably enough, in complete agreement with you here ( ... picking politicians from the population at large ... ). i too have had a similar thought. i'd want some form of vetting however - there are simply some people who are far too dumb, and far too lacking in (genuine) leadership abilities to run a nation.

now, a caucus government - instead of a president, a council of 13 randomly chosen citizens. the majority vote determines the decisions. that could work.

It would certainly be very interesting. I think I'd want a larger number, and

certain safeguards which I can't think of at the moment, to prevent cliques

gaining disproportionate power. Maybe the selection criteria should include

a top and bottom age range, to be in employment and.. erm..

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:58 am

Bill Sikes wrote: It would certainly be very interesting. I think I'd want a larger number, and

certain safeguards which I can't think of at the moment, to prevent cliques

gaining disproportionate power. Maybe the selection criteria should include

a top and bottom age range, to be in employment and.. erm..
exactly! we're gradually turning to, say, a representational form of government, which is what the US already has. the public vets the representatives, who then go to washington and vote in numbers to represent the local interests, with a judiciary as one counterpoising check and balance, and the presidency as the other.

one of the problems is that the president's role was initially codified in a vastly different world, more than 200 years ago. his influence was far more limited, simply as a function of the technology of the time.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:06 am

anastrophe wrote: exactly! we're gradually turning to, say, a representational form of government, which is what the US already has. the public vets the representatives, who then go to washington and vote in numbers to represent the local interests, with a judiciary as one counterpoising check and balance, and the presidency as the other.

But there would be a very big difference. The politicians would be picked

randomly from a large pool of the population, likely for the most part to be

innocent of the back-stabbing, two-faced, greasy pole climbing, try and then

try again in opposition, politicos. In for 7 (say) years, then out. There would

of course be the possibility of being randomly selected again - as there is

for Jury Service. I, for instance, have been called to that service twice -

some people never are. It's just the luck of the draw.

You don't think my cynicism about politicians is too far misplaced?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:10 am

Bill Sikes wrote:

You don't think my cynicism about politicians is too far misplaced?

as one can never be too rich or too thin, one can never be too cynical about politicians!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:21 pm

plazul wrote: You're just flat wrong Paul. Sure 9-11 had an effect but the nonpartisan CBO report last month clearly shows that the Bush tax cuts are driving this deficit. The swing from surplus to deficit is 700 billion this year and the tax burden has shifted largely to the middle class. I/3 of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 1% of households earning more than 1.3 million. That's Bush's constituency, not Joe Six Pack as he would have the people at his pep rallies believe.

I just don't see where you're getting the idea that there's no correlation here. The majority of mainstream economists have put out reams of data to show that tax cuts aren't the cure for recessions but I guess the supply siders are still in the driver's seat.

These are the issues that define us a Republicans and Democrats. (and accountants)
seems strange that the economy is improving, if the tax cuts are ruining the economy.

as i've mentioned before, i'm barely earning a living right now. even at my top earnings, i got nothing more than the minimum tax cut check a year or two ago when that took place.

i am deeply, deeply against 'progressive taxation', if the same does not apply in reverse. meaning:

progressive taxes mean that you tax people more and more the wealthier they are. that's one thing. the problem is, the *instant* someone proposes cutting or rolling back taxes, it is spewed every which way that it is 'tax breaks for the rich!'. well jesus h. christ in a chicken basket! they're the ones who are carrying most of the tax burden, how sick is it to tax them more when revenues are needed, but not give them back anything when there are tax cuts? that's middle-class warfare alright, warfare on the rich, which while sounding silly, is as wrong as any other.

in any event, the claim that the tax burden has shifted to the middle class is just poppycock. as i pointed out before, 5 out of ever 6 dollars in tax revenue collected by the IRS comes from the top earning 25%. no way, no how is the tax burden on the middle class.

be thankful for the rich. without them, you'd be paying 80% taxes on your income.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:35 pm

plazul wrote: The richest men in the world, including Bill gates and Warren Buffet, disagree with your position though I'm sure they appreciate your well meaning gratitude. And remember Ross Perot? You can thank a billionaire who wanted to tax himself more for Bill Clinton's victory over 41.
it's nice that the richest men in the world, who will never ever feel a tax increase even if they lived a thousand lifetimes, are so magnanimous with other people's money. i really don't care if bill gates or warren buffet disagree with me.

If Democrats hate the rich why are there so many rich Democrats?
because it's fashionable to pretend you aren't rich.

These are people with a social conscience
but conservatives who are rich don't have a social conscience. it's part of the contract. that and the secret handshake.

who feel it's wrong, for example, to have gone so many years without a raise in the minimum wage. Republicans like to say that minimum wage is only a temporary step on the wage ladder but there are millions of people out there who have been working more than one minimum wage job for years. In fact, several heart wrenching books have just come out this year about the plight of the working poor. I believe that we should have a social contract that acknowledges the dignity of work and doesn't force people who labor hard to take welfare.
so, rather than having poor people take welfare from the government, we'll give it to them by proxy by forcing employers to give them more money for the same work. the employers of course will raise their prices to offset the increased cost. that translates to higher tax revenues per dollar taken in by the state. and of course the employer has to pay social security etc from the wages, so the govt takes in more money relatively speaking. it all works out perfectly.

or not.

You want to talk about class warfare? Just try to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
the 'living wage' argument is a canard. you wind up pricing people out of the market. san franciso raised the minimum wage higher than the rest of the state. so employers are either making due by not hiring more workers, or laying off workers.

why not make a minimum wage of $50,000? that would be a 'living wage', would it not? it'd be great - no more poor people.

reality is slightly different however.

You say we should thank the rich but show me how they thank their labor force.
wait, the rich pay for things just like you and me. they put money back into the economy. they pay their employees. not all rich people are rich on the backs of the destitute. not by any stretch. how much do people who work at microsoft earn?

the rich are supposed to thank those to whom they're providing work, and a living?

I have more than I need and I just can't fathom how greedy you have to be to be a mega millionaire or a billionaire and fight against a little break for the working poor.
well since we're being magnanimous with other people's money, why don't we just take all the money from the rich and just give it to the poor? the poor certainly need it more than the rich do, right? it doesn't matter whether a person has actually earned it - it's The People's Money, right?

When I was young I didn't believe that such people existed and I thought the class struggle thing was all populist hyperbole. Then I got an education.
there is greed across all classes. and there's charity across all classes as well. you're talking about indistinct, fuzzy, sketch artist people. you were just saying that bill gates doesn't mind paying more taxes. and he gives billions to charity. that must make him a democrat, right?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:01 pm

plazul wrote: You said you've been on the Internet and on discussion boards from the beginning so I'm sure I can't match your pace and you probably type ten times faster than me. So I'm going to give you the last word on this thread.
well, okay, but i didn't ask to have the last word. we're having a discussion, a debate if you will.

How do you expect me to stop generalizing about conservatives when you reinforce the stereotype with your Scrooge mentality?can you define what you mean by that? i believe in an honest buck for honest work. propped up wages don't equal honest wages, no matter what anyone says. i've worked for minimum wage. back when i was in high school, living with my parents. so i can't ever claim that i know what it's like to live on minimum wage. but you fall down a slippery slope when you talk about each person being entitled to a 'living wage'. what, exactly, constitutes a 'living wage'?

I'd like to gather statistics on the inadequacy of the minimum wage and the economic benefits of living wages but to what end? It wouldn't soften you up.
okay. but which is it? minimum wage, or living wage? they are most emphatically not the same thing. the minimum wage has been increasing steadily over the years. it was less than $2.00 an hour when i earned it. and what are the economic benefits of it? aside from increasing what a teenager makes at their part time job (the majority of minimum wage earners are in that class), how does it benefit the economy? what, again i ask, is a 'living wage' as opposed to a minimum wage?

You say that poor people "take from the government"
actually, i challenge you to quote me on that, as you've used quotes above. i did not say that. i would never say that, as it's a bad construct. some welfare and other entitlements are people living off other people's earnings (taxes), without giving anything back. i agree with you about clinton and the changes to welfare - clinton leaned to the middle. surprisingly, the frantic fear mongering by the far left that tightening up welfare would cause untold horrors and riots in the streets didn't happen. fancy that.

and that raising their wages would just be welfare by proxy?giving people more money for the same work, outside of market driven wages, means that the government is forcing employers to pay more when the work may not be worth more. a minimum wage doesn't take into account any aspect of the kind of work, or who is doing the work, or what the work is worth. that's a form of welfare by proxy. i would not, however, argue that that's inferior to actual welfare.

Did you know that the majority of poor people work?of course.

Do you think they all take from the government? of course not. and i still don't like that construct of 'take from the government'. when you 'take from the government' you are taking from the taxpayers, full-stop, no room for discussion or debate.

Well, maybe so if you include the ones, including soldiers, who aren't too proud to take food stamps. And of course, a lot of them don't make enough to pay income tax. So yeah, I suppose they're probably just a bunch of slackers who want to pick your pocket.
never said it, never suggested it.

All I've got left to say is, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" and "You reap what you sew."
i'd still like an answer to why the minimum wage shouldn't be $50,000 a year, for any work, no matter how trivial. i'd like a logical argument against it. then, one explaining why then a minimum wage shouldn't be $25,000. then $20,000. then $18,000. do i hear $14,000? $12,000? what is a living wage?