I can't keep the topic straight. You have this strange view that spending and taxing are two different things, and need not be discussed in conjunction. (Many of us feel that one should not spend more than one has, but whatever.) I thought we were discussing Kerry's votes on taxes, so I didn't understand why you brought up what he would spend money on. Moreover, I think a discussion of all of this is a little silly, given that Kerry's freedom to spend or tax will most likely be constrained by a GOP Congress.

If the topic is, Kerry: liberal or moderate?, what should we be discussing -- taxing or spending?

I don't know what "liberal" means to you. Social liberal? Fiscal liberal? What are you talking about? The initial discussion was about raising taxes (and for the record, I'd agree with Bilmore's assessment of Kerry's record on taxes), not fiscal responsibility, which in my mind are two entirely different yet related things.

Additionally, I don't think anyone can assess in a vacuum whether or not someone will be likely to raise taxes. Certainly Bush I ran on the idea that it wasn't going to happen, and that certainly came back to bite him in the ass.

Agreed. Essentially he was conned into giving the same stupid "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge that came back to bite Bush I in the ass.

That would be true if I was a member of the "middle class."

you do admit that this was complete bullshit, don't you?

OK, Now What?
 

if you've never handled a timber rattler or drank strychnine, maybe you should just keep quiet on the isssue?

I believe you have conceded two things:

(1) Bush is a fiscal liberal (and I believe other conservatives on the board have conceded this in the past); and

(2) Kerry is not a liberal in the Roosevelt/New Deal sense.

Frankly, I've always viewed the "L" label that Bush is trying to pin on Kerry to be point (2).

Now, my view: the prevailing perspective of the Democratic party today, with Kerry right in the mainstream of Democratic thought is that yes, there are things we would like government to do and we see a role for government in helping people. At the same time, we will help the most people through keeping the economy going and exercising fiscal discpline (Kerry's statement in the debate that in putting together his plan he has cut back on what he wanted to do because of fiscal restraints) and through empowering others rather than expanding government.

Health care, for example. Kerry is explicitly rejecting a single payor system or a socialized healthcare system, but is suggesting that legislation specifically authorizing the creation of purchasing pools for pharmaceuticals (not necessarily run by the government, by the way) can help, as can opening enrollment to the government's own health care program to the public (with cost dependent in part on ability to pay).

You're going to say it's liberal because it involves government. I'm going to say it is an attempt to practically solve a problem in our country with the participation of government, and that it is a far cry from a New Deal style social security entitlement program or from a government owned business like the post office.

So, Kerry's a Democrat, just as Clinton was. Is he a liberal? Well, tell me what a liberal is - nonperjoratively.

We should be discussing both and then some. Kerry will spend at least as much and more likely more than Bush and will raise taxes to do it. My guess is that the deficits under Kerry will be about equal to Bush's current, but who the hell knows. In any event, big spending + hire taxes = liberal. Math is hard, but that equation is easy.

I brought up the other items because he I think they make him a liberal as well. This will sound trite and is an over simplification, but anyone who believes that government is better suited to solve an individuals problems than the individual is a liberal.

Socially, he is a liberal, but I agree with him on some of the social issues (e.g, gay marriage).

What vacuum? He said he is going to raise taxes.

Andy
 

Goddammit, Slave, take me off ignore!

I offered this theory some time ago, and got nothing.

And I think you should buy it. The GOP Congress will drive foreign policy so hard in a Kerry Administration, odds are better than even that it'll be the first time we see actually see Congress declare war in the last 50 years.

Don't worry. If you're a working lawyer making over $200,000 per year in a high tax state like California with a mortgage, it is likely that the AMT ate your Bush tax cut (it did mine).

So, the rollback probably won't hit you, because the cut got cut already.

With whose Congress?

We can agree that he is somewhere between Clinton and Roosevelt.

Is the health care system an individual's problem?

and is a rollback of the tax cuts an increase?

Frankly, he may be to the right of Clinton. But he's not far off one way or the other.

It didn't last year, but it's not really about me. It's about the principle.

OK, Now What?
 

http://media.mnginteractive.com/medi...erry031004.jpg

"Everybody with me...

Freres Jacques,
Freres Jacques
A dorme vous?
A dorme vous..."

Are you kidding? If you need me to define a tax increase for you I will.

With your definition of "liberal" I probably need to take immersion courses, because it's very clear that we don't speak the same language.

RT, please don't pose this question, even rhetorically.

Though introduced with nifty flashing lights and funny terms like "sunset," GOPers have adapted to make these tax cuts their alpha and omega, a regular staple of their diet. Asking this question is like pissing in their breakfast cereal.

OK <getting snide>, how many tax increases in the most recent Pork bill</getting snide><shit eating grin>Bush is going to sign?</shit eating grin>

Health care is an individual's problem. The system is all of our problems.

So I don't get to count all of those GOP votes for sunset as votes for tax increases? Damn, I thought I was finally getting the hang of the GOP calculation of a "vote to raise taxes."

ETA: Math is hard.

No idea, but how is that relevant? A tax hike is a tax hike, no matter who signs or votes for it.

OK, Now What?
 

Well, at least you know nobody will mistake you for a Frenchy!**

There's a boy in my son's kindergarten class who is French, and apparently, something of a rabble-rouser. My son described that kid thusly: "He's French and he's CRAZY!!" (He makes it sound as though they are one and the same -- and I suppose maybe they are...)




It's "Frere"(with an accent mark that I don't know how to make on this program) and "dormez vous?"

Gatti gets me.

It's just fun to drive home the point that Bush is a fiscal liberal. Frankly, in this case, where we are dealing with brazen pork, I believe that the outcome in a Kerry presidency would be significantly greater fiscal constraint, since the Democrats and Republicans usually want to deliver pork to different constituencies and the fight over the spoils lessens the pork. Though I recognize that what the house leadership did was to say, we'll take our pork but put enough in front of you guys so you won't be able to attack us for it, effectively doubling the snouts at the trough.

OK, Now What?
 

Now, be nice. It wasn't too long ago that Slave learned that "LMNOP" was more than one letter.

OK, Now What?
 

Ribbit!!!

Smart kid. Must be that apple not far from the tree thing.

Serves me right for checking my French spelling against googled Fugees lyrics.

Oh well. Ding ding dong.

Not at all. And you may believe that he will break his word in any event, but at the very least he will now pay a much greater political price for doing so.

Jon Stewart
 

I just heard audio of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire (I don't know who the host is -- is it Tyler something-or-other?).

It's a live show, and he called the host a dick. HA!

[PB etiquette frowns upon posting something like this sans a link -- t.s.]

I think this is wrong. Wrong because the Republican party, under Bush, is so captive to corporate interests that the government is not going to stop flowing. Republicans are less interested in using money to solve social problems, but that's only part of the picture. And it's wrong because Kerry and a GOP Congress will balance each other, whereas Bush and a GOP Congress will be a massive porkathon (again). Kerry is not running for Tom DeLay's job. He's running to be President.

To borrow from Posner, the question is not whether government is best suited to solve an individual's problems, but whether free markets will function well, or whether there's some sort of market failure calling for government intervention.

And bilmore wonders why some of us are so bitter.

Jon Stewart
 

Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala [on this particular show].

From the Corner (apologies to Gatti, who I already sent this to):

I'm not bitter. Being in the top 1% is good. I just want the rest of my peers to have their tax cut treated like mine.

Both candidates are big enthusiasts of using government to cure social ills and both are not afraid of using public money to do it.

Kerry wants to take a slightly less aggressive approach to dealing with terrorism, in terms of his willingness to use war as a preemptive tool. However, he wants to use the government and public fisc to help provide a better health care and employment structure.

Bush, on the other hand is a great adventurer, willing to use troops to impose order on an unruly world. He is also willing to use the Justice department and law enforcement to wield a big stick at home. He is not quite as cognizant as others of the cost of this strategy, but sooner or later, it's going to require someone to drop a bunch of federal money.

Kerry recognizes that his plans are going to cost and he is proposing rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay for it. It's an open question whether or not the funds will be adequate, but at least he would start to pay for his ambition.

Bush, on the other hand, is in a wonderland. He appears to actually believe he can spend billions of dollars to be the Big Kahuna and call the tune globally and give out tax breaks that favor his donor base more highly thaan the rest of America at the same time.

The issue isn't really one of who is more "liberal" on taxes or spending, but who is the greater pragmatist.

Jon Stewart
 

Haven't seen or heard this show yet, but I wouldn't be shocked by it.

TDS (and, by extension, Stewart) is currently the recipient of far more fame, adulation and attention than they could possibly live up to. Stewart's ostensible point -- which has some merit, though it's already been made elsewhere -- is that mainstream media are powerfully lazy, and that he considers putting up 2 opposing viewpoints and letting them scream at each other, without any other input whatsoever, intellectually dishonest.

Making the point as part of a TDS set-piece is funny, sometimes very much so.

Making the point on a darkened Charlie Rose set is fine as far as navel-gazing goes, though really it'll appeal only to us overeducated hippie liberal types.

Going on Crossfire and calling the journalists on that show lazy, stupid dickheads? Yeah, I can see how that would sound sanctimonious, and probably wouldn't go over very well.

Under that formula, Bush I was a liberal. Aren't labels helpful?

The health care system is anything but an individual's problem. The insurance industry and the health care industry have worked together to the end that the individual is totally fucked by the system on both insurance premiums and on health care costs. The only way to keep from going bankrupt is to be employed by an employer who does a decent job of bargaining for good group health care.