Kerry has outlined several new programs, like universal health care, bolstering Social Security, "cutting taxes for businesses" (yes, says so on his website) balancing the budget, and "strengthen the military", etc. Has he explained what other programs would be cut or how taxes would be raised to pay for it? http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

This isn't a rhetorical question. I really haven't heard anything. Please don't bother doing a kneejerk "look what Bush has done," because that's not the issue here. I'm more interested in hearing what anyone has to say about how Kerry plans to pay for the programs he proposes. Thanks.

I believe he's been forthright about rescinding tax breaks to the "wealthy." From what I understand, that would mean going back to the levels under Clinton.

When I think of the immense surplus those taxes created I think of the tragedy of what might have been.


Kerry has outlined several new programs, like universal health care, bolstering Social Security, "cutting taxes for businesses" (yes, says so on his website) balancing the budget, and "strengthen the military", etc. Has he explained what other programs would be cut or how taxes would be raised to pay for it? http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

This isn't a rhetorical question. I really haven't heard anything. Please don't bother doing a kneejerk "look what Bush has done," because that's not the issue here. I'm more interested in hearing what anyone has to say about how Kerry plans to pay for the programs he proposes. Thanks.

Kerry has outlined several new programs, like universal health care, bolstering Social Security, "cutting taxes for businesses" (yes, says so on his website) balancing the budget, and "strengthen the military", etc. Has he explained what other programs would be cut or how taxes would be raised to pay for it? http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

This isn't a rhetorical question. I really haven't heard anything. Please don't bother doing a kneejerk "look what Bush has done," because that's not the issue here. I'm more interested in hearing what anyone has to say about how Kerry plans to pay for the programs he proposes. Thanks.
that's a good question to ask. no idea. Here is what his website says:

THE JOHN KERRY APPROACH:

Cut Middle Class Taxes: John Kerry will not raise taxes on middle class Americans by one dime – he will cut them, including tax cuts to make health care and education more affordable.


Restore PAYGO: Roll Back Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Pay for Health and Education: John Kerry will make healthcare affordable and accessible for all Americans and invest in education by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.


Restrain Discretionary Spending: John Kerry will restore the discretionary spending caps of the 1990s to ensure that spending – outside of education and security – does not grow faster than inflation.


Cut Corporate Welfare to Reduce the Deficit: John Kerry will push the McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission to eliminate unnecessary corporate welfare and use the savings to reduce the deficit.

First, I would suggest this link:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

It provides some numbers. You will not find a detailed budget, but that never happens during campaigns. At least this lists some specific ideas.

Second, it is not universal health care. There is a goal of 95% coverage. Since many are already covered, he does not need to come up with a plan to cover everyone, but only most of those that are not currently insured. Details here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html

There are more details on these links than the one you provided. Will they be detailed enough for you? Probably not, but they are more detailed than the link you provided.

that's a good question to ask. no idea. Here is what his website says:

THE JOHN KERRY APPROACH:

Cut Middle Class Taxes: John Kerry will not raise taxes on middle class Americans by one dime – he will cut them, including tax cuts to make health care and education more affordable.


Restore PAYGO: Roll Back Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Pay for Health and Education: John Kerry will make healthcare affordable and accessible for all Americans and invest in education by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.


Restrain Discretionary Spending: John Kerry will restore the discretionary spending caps of the 1990s to ensure that spending – outside of education and security – does not grow faster than inflation.


Cut Corporate Welfare to Reduce the Deficit: John Kerry will push the McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission to eliminate unnecessary corporate welfare and use the savings to reduce the deficit.

Doesn't sound like nearly enough, plus he wants to both "cut corporate taxes" and "cut corporate welfare" -- not sure how that works...

There isn't enough total income among all the "rich" to balance the budget, much less enough incremental tax revenue from raising their taxes to do so. This is all while cutting taxes on the "middle income," too. Cutting "discretionary spending" is good, but still far from sufficient.

First, I would suggest this link:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

It provides some numbers. You will not find a detailed budget, but that never happens during campaigns. At least this lists some specific ideas.

Second, it is not universal health care. There is a goal of 95% coverage. Since many are already covered, he does not need to come up with a plan to cover everyone, but only most of those that are not currently insured. Details here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html

There are more details on these links than the one you provided. Will they be detailed enough for you? Probably not, but they are more detailed than the link you provided.


Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.

Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.

What is the reduction amount? Can he keep it under 422 billion? George has set the bar pretty high. He might be able to limbo under that number by a bit.

Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.
I agree, but that's politics. I don't remember any politician claiming he knew how to pay for everything before he was elected. That happens afterwards and various programs are cut or adjusted to compensate for the stuff they really want to do. My biggest problem with JFK is that he tries to be everything to everyone. If he's not a fiscal conservative then just state so and let the cards fall where they may. He's too concerned about pissing off the moderates.

Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.

Is it any worse than what Bush has done? We have a huge deficit again, and I haven't heard anything about what Bush is going to do to fix it. So is it really fair to hold Kerry to a much, much higher standard? Maybe Kerry is talking fantasy numbers, but clearly Bush doesn't know what the hell he is doing either. Head to head, I'd say advantage Kerry.

It is pretty typical for any candidate to toss out all sorts of general "good ideas" without any real plan for execution. I'm ready to chalk this up to "election year bluster."

I am very curious how the rest of the world is somehow able to afford government paid universal health care. My parents are soon coming off post-retirement employee-funded health insurance, and essentially will not have any prescription coverage. My mother is very stressed about this- she has rheumatoid arthritis and is on a bunch of meds that are very expensive. My father has heart problems and is diabetic. This is a huge issue for both of them. They paid in a lifetime of premiums and have only had real trouble the past few years. The other issue is: how is he defining "coverage"? Medicare is only half the battle. Ironically, MA (for poor or disabled people) is currently superior to most employer-based plans.

I wonder how much money we have already paid for "homeland security" expenses? As much of a critic as I've been of the "Bush Doctrine," at least we are also being defensive at home (in addition to pre-emptive abroad). End the war/occupation and we'll save billions... ;)

Frankly, the only that will be able to fund any of these ideas is for the economy to flourish... and for people to be confident enough that they will have a job that they will actually spend some money.

Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.

Kerry, when he becomes President, is going to have to dig out of a big fiscal hole. But Democrats did it before (under Clinton) and can do it again. The core budget principle of a Kerry Administration would be restoring a "pay-as-you-go" policy. Quote below is from a Kerry press release dated 4/7/04.

To repair the damage done by George Bush's failed economic policies, Kerry today pledged to restore fiscal discipline in the White House with a budget based on three principles: middle-class tax cuts, restoring "pay-as-you-go" rules and restraining spending growth, and closing corporate tax loopholes to cut the deficit. Among other priorities, Kerry said he will use this framework to create 10 million new jobs, make quality health care more affordable, and improve education.

The middle class has been squeezed under George Bush. While wages are falling, costs like health care and education are going up. Kerry will cut taxes on middle class families and close corporate tax loopholes. To cut costs, he will fight for tax credits to make college more affordable and to help small businesses and vulnerable adults pay for health care.

In contrast to George Bush's $6 trillion spending spree, Kerry will return the federal government to the principle of paying for new initiatives without increasing the deficit. Known as "pay-as-you-go," these common-sense budget rules were instrumental in creating the economic growth of the 1990s but were quickly abandoned by the Bush administration. In addition to reintroducing "pay-as-you-go," Kerry will take steps to ensure discretionary spending - excluding defense and homeland security - does not grow any faster than inflation.

To cut the deficit, Kerry will end corporate welfare as we know it. In the Senate, Kerry has worked with Senator McCain to end corporate welfare, and as president, Kerry will use the savings this creates for deficit reduction.

"We know how to do this," Kerry said. "We did it in the 1990s. Now it's time to return our government to fiscal responsibility - and our country to investment in the future, to job creation and rising standards of living."

Is anyone suggesting that it adds up to a balanced budget, or better yet, a deficit reducing budget? Doesn't even seem close, if he would implement everything he proposes.

What is kerry claiming? Feel free to show how it is wrong. Total it all up for us, why don't you?

Certainly some of the proposals will reduce the growth, like PAYGO and budget caps.

dr. (teaching day, no time to play) hoo

...yours. But I COULD, if I wanted to.
Just in case you've pushed it to the back of your mind, mine was about Social Security: If we DO privatize it (a horrible idea, IMO), and the market tanks temporarily (as you may be aware, it's done that in the past), what happens to the people who, through no fault or misjudgment or malfeasance of their own, suddenly find that on the very day they have to retire, their portfolio is worth $18.75? Do we let them starve, or what?

...yours. But I COULD, if I wanted to.
Just in case you've pushed it to the back of your mind, mine was about Social Security: If we DO privatize it (a horrible idea, IMO), and the market tanks temporarily (as you may be aware, it's done that in the past), what happens to the people who, through no fault or misjudgment or malfeasance of their own, suddenly find that on the very day they have to retire, their portfolio is worth $18.75? Do we let them starve, or what?

But want to sh*t all over one of his greatest legacies. If Social Security were privatized, the result would be a nightmare beyond anyone's ability to imagine.

...yours. But I COULD, if I wanted to.
Just in case you've pushed it to the back of your mind, mine was about Social Security: If we DO privatize it (a horrible idea, IMO), and the market tanks temporarily (as you may be aware, it's done that in the past), what happens to the people who, through no fault or misjudgment or malfeasance of their own, suddenly find that on the very day they have to retire, their portfolio is worth $18.75? Do we let them starve, or what?

First, and I'd need to see some numbers, even *with* the market tanking, the portfolio could still be worth far more than the benefits from social security. What is the expected "return on investment" from social security, anyway, something like 2% per year? If your private funds managed 5%, then tanked to 3%, you're still ahead.

I'd like to say that if someout knowingly opts out of social security, then they are stuck with the results. Harsh, but then I believe that people have the right to make their own choices, and even make what could be bad choices.

First, and I'd need to see some numbers, even *with* the market tanking, the portfolio could still be worth far more than the benefits from social security. What is the expected "return on investment" from social security, anyway, something like 2% per year? If your private funds managed 5%, then tanked to 3%, you're still ahead.

I'd like to say that if someout knowingly opts out of social security, then they are stuck with the results. Harsh, but then I believe that people have the right to make their own choices, and even make what could be bad choices.

Part of the issue is that all sorts of disabled individuals can pull out huge amounts of money over their lifetimes when they in fact never paid a dime in as SSI... or that folks on RSDI can pull out even larger sums, since they had some work history prior to disability. I am very curious how much of SS goes toward disability payouts rather than retirement. Never mind that in the current system, todays' workers fund current retirees, rather than their own retirement.

But want to sh*t all over one of his greatest legacies. If Social Security were privatized, the result would be a nightmare beyond anyone's ability to imagine.
SSI is a perfect example of how the government is unsuitable and incapable of implementing and managing an entitlement program. It was well intentioned but is ultimately doomed for failure becuase it's nothing more than a jar full of IOUs.

Libertarians always have great, practical ideas for managing real world human societies.

Libertarians always have great, practical ideas for managing real world human societies.
Sure. Since so many people are completely incapable of managing their finances and planning for the future that they need Uncle Sam to hold their hands through life, why not just make it so that the SSI fund can not be touched for ANYTHING other than SSI payouts and that all interest earned be deposited back into the fund. Imagine if that had been done from day one. It SSI would be the richest fund in the world. SSI is supposed to be OUR piggy bank, not the Fed's.

Is that practical enough?

Totally unnecessary. Bush pledged to put SS in a locked box.

There. You see?


Sure. Since so many people are completely incapable of managing their finances and planning for the future that they need Uncle Sam to hold their hands through life, why not just make it so that the SSI fund can not be touched for ANYTHING other than SSI payouts and that all interest earned be deposited back into the fund. Imagine if that had been done from day one. It SSI would be the richest fund in the world. SSI is supposed to be OUR piggy bank, not the Fed's.

Is that practical enough?

That's Libertarian Gold!

"Imagine If". Woulda been. Us Vs. "Feds". Blah blah blah, yakety schmakety.

Totally unnecessary. Bush pledged to put SS in a locked box.

There. You see?

Lock Box was Gore.

Hey, that's one promise Bush didn't break!



Lock Box was Gore.

That's Libertarian Gold!

"Imagine If". Woulda been. Us Vs. "Feds". Blah blah blah, yakety schmakety.
Tell me why it wouldn't work and work better than what is in place right now.

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Good question. Unfortunately both candidates are promising that we can eat our cake and have it too. If one of them were to offer up a proposed budget, it would be picked apart in the particulars. While this is a valid thing to do, it is politically more effective to promise broad programs.

I think Kerry and Bush will go into deficit spending, which upsets me. Neither of them know how to pay for the programs, and they both make the mistake of believing we need a military that is larger than the next ten largest militaries combined. Sizing down the military wouldn't solve all our problems, just as taxing the rich won't, but it might be a good start. Neither candidate has the guts to do it though.

Or maybe you thought that your ingeniously simple plans to set our country straight haven't occurred to countless people before, been tried, failed and been scrapped?

Or maybe you thought that your ingeniously simple plans to set our country straight haven't occurred to countless people before, been tried, failed and been scrapped?
LOL! When has the SSI fund ever been off-limits for anything but SSI payouts? Maybe for a whole 5 seconds at its inception. Maybe. LOL!

What does JOhn Kerry define as middle class? Any of you? Me? (and it doesnt matter what is currently defined as middle class) I think of myself as a middle class american but I am sure John Kerry doesnt.

I guess you really <i>do</i> think that nobody has even tried to put SSI in a <b>box</b> and <b>lock</b> it before. :(

I guess you really do think that nobody has even tried to put SSI in a box and lock it before. :(
No. Read my post. It hasn't been done. It's simple. Write up the bill, sign it into law and obey the law. That hasn't been done.

We've heard promises and bills have been introduced, with the appropriate loopholes in place, but it has never been the law of the land. Nope, you entitlement freaks can't keep your fingers out of the cookie jar. What a great house of cards you've built up. I hope it works out for you when you retire.

Of course, the hated "entitlement freaks", a.k.a. the American Electorate, can't keep our fingers out of the "cookie jar", a.k.a. our own money that we can spend as we collectively choose. But then, that's the "house of cards", a.k.a. Democratic Republic that we've built.

I'm sure you have a better idea. To bad nobody is likely to be smart enough to comprehend it. Must be lonely for you. :(

Of course, the hated "entitlement freaks", a.k.a. the American Electorate, can't keep our fingers out of the "cookie jar", a.k.a. our own money that we can spend as we collectively choose. But then, that's the "house of cards", a.k.a. Democratic Republic that we've built.

I'm sure you have a better idea. To bad nobody is likely to be smart enough to comprehend it. Must be lonely for you. :(
Yes, at times it is.

Alas, you are completely right with what you said above. I guess that's the paradox, huh? We want the retirement fund but want to spend it all before we retire.

The shame is that the house of cards will collapse under its own weight.