An Impartial Examination of John Kerry's Speech

[Riprorin]

An Impartial Examination of John Kerry's Speech
Aug 1, 2004

Set aside your hatred for President Bush, concentrate on Senator Kerry and his record.

The government paid for John Kerry?s entire existence. He was born in a government hospital. He was educated in Europe at government expanse. He spent a few months in the Navy at government expense. He has been employed at government expense his entire life. Kerry has taken money from American workers and distributed it to American non-workers his entire political career. John Kerry was born rich and married richer. How can John Kerry know what the productive side of American society is all about?

John Kerry the current Viet Nam war hero. Kerry came back from Viet Nam an anti-war protester. He appeared before congress and admitted committing war crimes. He spent the ensuing years judgmental of the military. His congressional career has been one of diminishing our military effectiveness. His first run for office was as an anti-war candidate. With one of the most dismal [and Liberal] records in congress of support for the military now Kerry wants to lead us to believe he can be the ? Can do President, a military genius? Don?t you believe the record should be what counts not words spoken in a political speech?

John Kerry?s been in the Congress for twenty years. Senator Kerry knows full well Presidents neither create jobs or unemployment. They are created in the privet sector. The Senator also knows economic conditions are governed by the actions of congress. Presidents request, congress decides. I ask how can a President create jobs in the privet sector? How is a President responsible for economic conditions? How does taxing the rich improve the economy? How does sending more money to congress to waste on more pork-barrel projects improve anything?

John Kerry made an issue of President Bush increasing the national debt. The Senator is fully aware Presidents have no power over the federal purse. Congress with its ability to add pork to every request a President makes has that power. They are the culprits responsible for the national debt. Has any one made the comparison of spending on national defense verses so called entitlements, failed entitlements?

John Kerry?s flip-flops on the war have left most of us not knowing exactly where he stands from day to day. We do know where he stands on a coalition. Squarely with the French and Germans, left of center. The Democrats and Kerry have dismissed seventeen other countries as totally irrelevant in this war on terror. Kerry?s position on the Iraq war is a one-eighty degree turn from what he said when he was backing Bill Clinton. I ask his supporters how an election can make a man reverse his convictions so rapidly?

John Kerry chastised President Bush for not making all the social changes he campaigned on in 2000. I can answer that in a very few words. 9/11, a War on terror and a Democratic Congress.

Do Liberal supporters of John Kerry honestly believe Democrats in congress have made any attempt to negotiate in a non-partisan way issues with the President?

Given the history of elections. Should Kerry win this election and become President he?ll face a Republican majority in both houses of congress, [History dictates it]. All the, I?m sorry it was only politics wont clean this one up. The Republicans will have a field day treating Kerry the same way the Liberals treated President Bush.

I see a new day coming for the Democratic Party. Liebermen, Biden. Ford, Obama. These are men with leadership qualities and a vision of politics as it should be. Given the opportunity to lead others will follow. I have no doubt with Senator Kerry?s record for change he to will follow once he?s back in the Senate having lost the election to President Bush.

The title of this article includes ?Impartial? it doesn?t say un-biased. I?ve offered a question at the end of each of my allegations. Before you e-mail me calling me what liberals call me. Read the question twice before answering. You may be surprised at what you learn.

Voting is as important as who you vote for.

Link

 

[cumhail]

From Riprorin's Link:

About the Author: Ken Hughes is a retired businessman. A political junkie who's passion is the re-education of Liberals and Term Limits for Congress. He has had very little sucess at either.

Yeah... a really impartial guy "who's (sic) passion is the re-education of Liberals..."

cumhail

 

[Gaard]

The second sentence of this impartial examination...

The government paid for John Kerry?s entire existence.

 

[viivo]

I could never be as impartial as he..

I have no doubt with Senator Kerry?s record for change he to will follow once he?s back in the Senate having lost the election to President Bush.

..but isn't this the same stuff that's being said every day already? Came back a protestor, changed his mind, a wussy liberal who will give the terrorists blowjobs, etc.

 

[Gaard]

Oh, and Rip, once again, you've failed to use quotes. Gee!

 

[NeoV]

most of those 17 'other' countries are in fact insignificant...

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: NeoV
most of those 17 'other' countries are in fact insignificant...

A Link of This Guy's Other Columns

This guy's a hoot... among his so-called "columns" is his republication of the supposed "Robin Williams Peace Plan" that Williams, of course, didn't write.

I'm not familiar with the site; but if this guy's columns and Rip's apparent readership are any indicators, it seems to live up to its name of "Useless Knowledge."

cumhail

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

 

[fjord]

An im-impartial blog...

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

Sure the goverment spends the money and that increase the GDP.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

Sure the goverment spends the money and that increase the GDP.

Wrong. The money that was taken would have been invested or spent by the rich. That shoots down your increasing GDP theory..

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

Sure the goverment spends the money and that increase the GDP.

Wrong. The money that was taken would have been invested or spent by the rich. That shoots down your increasing GDP theory..

No it is still correct. You might be able to argue that rich old hags spending the money would be better for the economy then taxing the rich, but there is no question that taxing the rich is spending the money imporves the economy.

 

[Siddhartha]

Is this another parody thread?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

<cutting to the significant parts>

I see a new day coming for the Democratic Party. Liebermen, Biden. Ford, Obama. These are men with leadership qualities and a vision of politics as it should be.

Well, two out of three ain't bad. Lieberman leaves me cold.

The title of this article includes ?Impartial? it doesn?t say un-biased.

Rip -- You're improving. You've gone from blatantly loony fringe links to the merely obscure. I wouldn't deny the man the right to say his piece and make his points to the best of his abilities.

About the Author: Ken Hughes is a retired businessman. A political junkie who's passion is the re-education of Liberals and Term Limits for Congress. He has had very little sucess at either.

Of course, I wish him a long continution of the same level of sucess (sic).

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Spencer278


No it is still correct. You might be able to argue that rich old hags spending the money would be better for the economy then taxing the rich, but there is no question that taxing the rich is spending the money imporves the economy.

Improves the economy as compared to what then? If we are not going to be realistic then why even engage the question?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Spencer278


No it is still correct. You might be able to argue that rich old hags spending the money would be better for the economy then taxing the rich, but there is no question that taxing the rich is spending the money imporves the economy.

Improves the economy as compared to what then? If we are not going to be realistic then why even engage the question?

Compared to the current state. If one year the GDP is at 10 and the next congress taxes the rich old hags for 1 then assuming all else stays the same the GDP would increase. And why isn't that realistic it is the same proof we see for trickle down BS. The neo-cons will show the income tax returns for one year then X number of years latter the income tax returns are greater therefor tricledown worked.

 

[Ozoned]

<--------------------------disappointed

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
<--------------------------disappointed

Well lets see the opisite that tax break to the rich is better for the economy then not having the tax cuts.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

What an odd question. Do you mean how does taxing the rich a higher rate than the poor improve the economy? Either way I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed taxing has improved the economy. It is possible that Federal spending could improve the economy. I always though taxing was to generate income for the government, not to improve the economy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

Sure. One of the greatest sources of instability in any society is a large, hungry, pissed off poverty class. The reason the income tax system is progressive is because, as long as the working people with a full time jobs can't feed, clothe, house, and genrally provide for theselves and their kids, you have a lot of unrest. That's one of our problems in Iraq.

When, at the same time, you have an extremely small, extremely well heeled 1% of the population controlling a percentage of the wealth in the high ninety percent range, and you have blatant public examples by some of lavish, extravagant, even self indulgent beyond reason spending of their discretionary income, and these same people are caught up in highly publicized financial wrongdoing, such as by those involve with Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc., you have the makings for a potential revolution.

Beyond that, even those not involved in scandalous behavior do NOT necessarily invest their money back into improving the GDP.

It is in the best intrest of all of society to provide the infrastructure that allows commerce to flourish and grow.

It is in our best interest to provide quality education for all of its citizens because it contributes to greater current and future productivity while simultaneously eliminating a source of current and future poverty as a drain on society's resourses.

It makes sense to provide health care for as many people as possible. Sick people are somewhere between less productive than healthy people and totally nonproductive. Healthy people can work to their full potential.

If we define reasonable taxation as that which does not take so much from most working peple's income that they cannot maintain of a decent survival level, it is impossible to generate enough income from such taxation to pay for the very things that will most benefit the society.

What remains as an income source is greater taxation of the incrementally higher disposable income on those who can, in fact, afford it. If that means they only get five yachts instead of eight, and three chateaus, instead of five, it's just too damned bad. If, instead, the we allow the poor to suffer long enough, it won't be the first time the ultra-rich lost everything.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Just so long as the least among us remains hungry, or uncared for, or unable to find useful work, just so long must it be the task of all Government, local, State and Federal, to seek reasonable but progressive means to help the unfortunate."

OTOH, when Marie Antoinette was told the French peasants were starving, she is reputed to have said, "Let them eat cake." It cost her her crown and its underlying support system. :Q

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How does taxing the rich improve the economy?

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

Sure. One of the greatest sources of instability in any society is a large, hungry, pissed off poverty class. The reason the income tax system is progressive is because, as long as the working people with a full time jobs can't feed, clothe, house, and genrally provide for theselves and their kids, you have a lot of unrest. That's one of our problems in Iraq.

When, at the same time, you have an extremely small, extremely well heeled 1% of the population controlling a percentage of the wealth in the high ninety percent range, and you have blatant public examples by some of lavish, extravagant, even self indulgent beyond reason spending of their discretionary income, and these same people are caught up in highly publicized financial wrongdoing, such as by those involve with Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc., you have the makings for a potential revolution.

Beyond that, even those not involved in scandalous behavior do NOT necessarily invest their money back into improving the GDP.

It is in the best intrest of all of society to provide the infrastructure that allows commerce to flourish and grow.

It is in our best interest to provide quality education for all of its citizens because it contributes to greater current and future productivity while simultaneously eliminating a source of current and future poverty as a drain on society's resourses.

It makes sense to provide health care for as many people as possible. Sick people are somewhere between less productive than healthy people and totally nonproductive. Healthy people can work to their full potential.

If we define reasonable taxation as that which does not take so much from most working peple's income that they cannot maintain of a decent survival level, it is impossible to generate enough income from such taxation to pay for the very things that will most benefit the society.

What remains as an income source is greater taxation of the incrementally higher disposable income on those who can, in fact, afford it. If that means they only get five yachts instead of eight, and three chateaus, instead of five, it's just too damned bad. If, instead, the we allow the poor to suffer long enough, it won't be the first time the ultra-rich lost everything.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Just so long as the least among us remains hungry, or uncared for, or unable to find useful work, just so long must it be the task of all Government, local, State and Federal, to seek reasonable but progressive means to help the unfortunate."

OTOH, when Marie Antoinette was told the French peasants were starving, she is reputed to have said, "Let them eat cake." It cost her her crown and its underlying support system. :Q

Your vision is grandiose. What is it that leads you to believe that government can deliver any part of it in a more efficient manner than the private sector can? Is there any example in government that you can point to that would result in the 'rich' saying that your goals are realistic?

Income is a consumer driven thing, and it does not matter what class you tax to take it from . Everyone that has an income to spend pays for it. A tax increase on the rich is a tax increase on everyone.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Your vision is grandiose. What is it that leads you to believe that government can deliver any part of it in a more efficient manner than the private sector can? Is there any example in government that you can point to that would result in the 'rich' saying that your goals are realistic?

What is it that leads you to believe that a sufficient number of the privileged few would voluntarily construct and contribute to a single private organization whose sole purpose is to provide for the common good? That IS the role of government.

Nobody said it is ideal or idyllic. It's just the only thing that makes sense. So far, the best bad system I've seen is a reasonable semblance of democracy.

Income is a consumer driven thing, and it does not matter what class you tax to take it from . Everyone that has an income to spend pays for it. A tax increase on the rich is a tax increase on everyone.

I disagree. I'm a skilled engineer. I've been out of work for far too long, and it isn't because I haven't been looking, and I'm losing my house. Even after paying all their lawers' bills, I'll bet those Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and Adelphia execs could afford to pay more in taxes than I made all last year.

I'll bet Bush and Cheney's Halliburton buddies stashed away more than that from overcharging tax paying U.S. citizens, too. Hell! Each of them probably donated more to the Bush campaign than I've seen in the last five years. :frown:

Now, what were you saying, and are you really serious?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Harvey


Now, what were you saying, and are you really serious?

I posted this in another thread.

Take my case for example.....

I am not at the very top echelons, but in the echelon that does pay a fair amount of income tax. I make my living by providing a service that is in demand to people that have money to spend on my service. My customers are Mainly the lower and middle class citizens of this country. When I sell my service, I make a profit from it. That is where I derive my income. I, and so many more people just like me have become accustomed to the life style that this income provides. If the federal government decides to take more of my profit from me in the form of income tax, I will not work for less money than I am making now, but will pass along the cost of the tax increase to those that purchase my service. Who will end up paying for my tax increase?

I guarantee that it won't be me.

Isn't the lion share of the economy constructed of people just like me?

 

[Kibbo]

Sure the goverment spends the money and that increase the GDP.

If the money were to remain in the hands of the rich it would add the same amount to the GDP-the amount they spent on imports. Also, Taxation leads to efficiency losses. If the price of orange juice goes up due to taxes, people buy less. In the same way, if the price of labour goes up, people hire less. This efficiency loss tends to outweigh the import loss. Thus, in sheer arithmetic, taxation reduces GDP. How much it does so is debatable. It could be slight, it could be significant.

Your vision is grandiose. What is it that leads you to believe that government can deliver any part of it in a more efficient manner than the private sector can? Is there any example in government that you can point to that would result in the 'rich' saying that your goals are realistic?

Any time a product gives a benifit to society outside of the benifit to the individual who pays for it, the market will distribute the good inefficiently. Education is an example. It increases the potential income of the person who pays for it, so they will be willing to pay a certain amount for it. But it also has benifits to society outside of that, in terms of having a more flexible work force, less crime, less weight on other social services, and better citizenship. The magnitude of the benifit of some of these is arguable, but it is there to a certain extent. Thus, the government should subsidize these on a purely economic basis. Whether it is provided by private enterprise or government institution, it should be subsidized.

Also, equity is a concern. Public education is there to give all people an even chance of success, regardless of class. This is a question of values, not economics. Subsidizing only public education and not private education gives a disincentive to people to get private education. This keeps more students in the public system, and therefore gives more parents political incentive to support public education. This leads to more spending on education. This may be economically less efficient, but it supports equity. One way to increase the efficacy of delivery in the pulic sphere would be to institute competition and choice between public schools, with commensurate rewards to the principals of schools that do well. As well, more decision-making powers should be allowed to be made at the school level, not from top down sources.

Progressive taxation is not more efficient, as the inefficiency caused by a tax is a factor of the square of the size of the tax. Thus, the greater the tax, the greater the efficiency. If you flattened the tax code, some efficiency gains would be realized. But this must be balanced against equity concerns. Many think it is unfair to tax the poor more than the rich. And, again, the magnitude of the efficiency gains are debtable. Especially when one looks at the tax code as a whole, and not just income taxes. In Canada, at least, all taxes end up being flat from the middle class on, once you take into account regressive taxes like sales tax and payroll taxes.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Sure the goverment spends the money and that increase the GDP.

If the money were to remain in the hands of the rich it would add the same amount to the GDP-the amount they spent on imports. Also, Taxation leads to efficiency losses. If the price of orange juice goes up due to taxes, people buy less. In the same way, if the price of labour goes up, people hire less. This efficiency loss tends to outweigh the import loss. Thus, in sheer arithmetic, taxation reduces GDP. How much it does so is debatable. It could be slight, it could be significant.

I don't buy it. How is an increase in taxs going to lead to an efficiency loss and there for make orange joice more expensive? The increase in tax will reduce your income and therefor you can buy less. The decrease in spending may be less then the increase in taxes if savings are reduced or it could be more if the person is overspending. Now we are talking about taxing rich old hags that tend to save there money because they have but loads of it so the tax and spending will be better for the economy.