Democrats are losing for one reason only - they are the round piece trying to go into the square hole. Many democratic goals are actually socialist in nature. Most Americans get this.

The idea of a national health care system for example. The concept of public only schools (no vouchers - even though our current system is obviously broken). The desire to increase spending on social programs that benefit the extremely poor. These are not platforms that are very American when you think about the fact that we are supposed to be a capitalism.

I am not the type to begrudge social programs. Honestly, I think that as a country, we are certainly rich enough to help out those in need. However, recent history shows that those taking advantage of these social programs aren't always those in need.

When I was growing up, my grandpop said that his parents and others came to this country because the streets were paved in gold. People still come to this country for that very reason. When we lose sight of the fact that this is a country that guaruntees the right "TO PURSUE HAPPINESS" and not simply the right TO HAPPINESS, that will be the day that America is no longer a destination for the huddled masses.

No one ever left the USSR to come to America for health care.



In 2004, look at the two platforms:

Bush
----

Whether you agree or not with his methods, he takes a strong stance on the war on terror

He cuts taxes, which lets people buy homes

He tries to establish an almost sentimental ideology in our culture


Kerry
-----

Raise taxes

Government health care

appears soft on war on terror, might not do what is necessary in Iraq.



There is no comparison here. Kerry might win in 04, but I would really be surprised if that actually happened.

Democrats are losing for one reason only - they are the round piece trying to go into the square hole. Many democratic goals are actually socialist in nature. Most Americans get this.

In reality, Democrats have won the popular vote in the last three national elections. It's been sixteen years since "most Americans" voted Republican.

Bush: He cuts taxes, which lets people buy homes

My taxes were cut by just under 100 dollars a year. Please tell me how people can buy homes with that, as I'd sure like to.

He tries to establish an almost sentimental ideology in our culture

I don't understand this. Can you elaborate?


Kerry: Raise taxes

Incorrect.

Bush: He cuts taxes, which lets people buy homes

I can't edit my comment so let me add this to my response:

My taxes were cut by just under 100 dollars a year. Please tell me how people can buy homes with that, as I'd sure like to. Right now, any tax benefit I gained is going straight into the gas tank, for even less gas than before.

Yes it is very possible that Bush has us in such a freaking mess that it will take years to get us out of it.

jack

Boom, maybe he meant a doll's house for your baby girl-:). Not one of the high-end ones from yuppie toy stores, though. They are pretty pricey.

Bush has done two things to improve the economy, cut taxes and lower interest rates. Both help you to buy your home.

If you got less than 100 bucks a year, then the fact is, you probably didn't make a whole lot, and you also probably don't deserve a whole lot of a cut either. I worked hard to get to where I am, I make a decent sum, I saw my paycheck go up about 100 bucks a month. Savings account, time passes, after a couple of years, you can buy a home. I wish they could just flat out give it to you, but that too would be unamerican.

If you got less than 100 bucks a year, then the fact is, you probably didn't make a whole lot, and you also probably don't deserve a whole lot of a cut either. I worked hard to get to where I am, I make a decent sum, I saw my paycheck go up about 100 bucks a month.

I work 40-60 hours a week, and make about 10,000 above the national income average. I definitely work hard. Ever try to rebuild a database, engage in a conference call with a client and change a diaper at the same time?

The reason why I pay more in taxes than you and why I get back less than you is that I cannot take advantage of many of the tax credits and such that you do. I cannot claim my spouse, I cannot file jointly, only this year did the IRS allow me to file head of household, and that was with significant accountant creativity. (Which the IRS audited, and then ultimately approved). I cannot claim anything like family medical insurance as a deduction like you can, and my family cannot benefit from social security like you can, that we must still pay into.

I work in technology too actually, i've rebuilt a few databases. I don't know about all of the deductions you think I am taking. I don't claim my spouse, and I try my best not to look at my paystub because as much as I am getting, the amount getting taken out is MUCH more.

The bottom line is, after bush's tax cuts, my paychecks were bigger. Not much bigger. But bigger. Kerry's plan to increase taxes doesn't appeal to me. Given that you already pay a boatload in taxes too, I don't see why it would appeal to you either.

Given that you already pay a boatload in taxes too, I don't see why it would appeal to you either.

this may be impossible for some people to relate to, but sometimes there are more important issues than money.

imagine that.

Kerry's plan to increase taxes doesn't appeal to me. Given that you already pay a boatload in taxes too, I don't see why it would appeal to you either.

I don't know why you won't let go of the concept that Kerry plans to raise taxes. He doesn't. Please give me a pro-Kerry source where he admits he will raise taxes. (georgewbush.com doesn't cut it). He plans to roll back tax cuts for those who make over 200,000 a year. That cuts me out of the loop and it also doesn't make the wealthy pay any more in taxes than they did before the tax cut.

Go to JohnKerry.com. It says all over the place that he will "repeal" the bush tax cuts. Hate to break it to you, but thats an increase.

And Mark, yes, there are more important things than money. But if thats the case, then why raise taxes? And anyway, what does your statement have to do about a financial discussion about taxes? Paying taxes for oversized government programs isn't necessarily noble. I'd rather buy my kids an extra book.

and don't for a second believe that the tax cut "repeal" will just affect those making over 200k. It might at first, but Kerry has a long record of raising taxes and frankly, he is electioning on a platform of raising taxes so show me one ioda of proof that he wont continue to do so.

Excerpts from JohnKerry.com:

Kerry will protect tax cuts for the middle class, such as the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income.

He has also proposed a $50 billion State Education and Tax Relief Fund that is designed to help states provide tax relief for state, local and property taxes for working families.

I am going to ask America's wealthiest people - those making over $200,000 a year - to pay the same fair share they paid under Bill Clinton.  Back then the rich got richer - but everyone else did too.

I have been all over kerry's website, and those quotes above are from just one page at johnkerry.com. Sorry James, I don't see what you do there.

Unlike most anti-bush people here, I'm one of the few who can proudly say I'm also pro-Kerry. Republican conservatives with their blogs, their airwaves and their Ann Coulter type books have gotten many liberals afraid of what the Democratic party stands for. They have blurred it. That's why you have many democrats like Lieberman who think they need to be republican-lite. Democrats are afraid to be Democrats now. They feel they need to be anti-bush instead. Unfortunately, that tactic will require them to be anti-bush for 4 more years, rather than just through this November.

I loved the economy under Clinton, and to me his biggest problem was that his definition of a hummer is one that doesn't guzzle gas. Big woo.

The economy under clinton was an abberation. Realize that he was president during a technological revolution. Did he luck into it? Surely. I still thought he did a great job, but I can hardly give him all the credit for the inventions of our friends at various universities.

As far as Kerry and tax cuts, democrats, blurred messages, dem lites...

I find it interesting how disparaging you are (not saying that you mean to be or anything) regarding lieberman. He is actually a fine politician with some good ideas. He should have been the candidate. I think he represents the average american more than Bush or Kerry.

It's well known that Kerry originally called for a repeal of ALL of bush's cuts. Recently he changed that to say just those making 200K or more. For now. Look at his math, he claims that he will pay for his health care plan with the tax repeal. But wait, don't we have a deficit? How can he pay for a new health care plan when he was supposed to use that money to pay down the deficit?

"The Massachusetts senator has offered a health care reform plan that calls for repealing the tax cut that Bush pushed through Congress applying to the wealthiest Americans, and using the money that saves to bolster health care. "

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/kerry.health.ap/index.html

This isn't GOPers muddying the issues. This is from the horses mouth. Kerry is a tax raiser. And a DAMNNED tax raiser!

The economy under clinton was an abberation. Realize that he was president during a technological revolution. Did he luck into it? Surely. I still thought he did a great job

I'm surprised and glad to see you think he did a great job. I will acknowledge the internet boom played a role, but there is a reason why republicans hate clinton so much. It wasn't because he was 'lucky', it was because he was good. The economy overall bloomed. Jobs for doctors, nurses, manufacturing, retail, etc. didn't blossom because wall street was going gaga over ebay stocks.

How can he pay for a new health care plan when he was supposed to use that money to pay down the deficit?

I can't speak for Kerry. Maybe he realized that health care for all will help reduce the deficit. Maybe he wanted to pay down the deficit before he found out more Americans care about health care than they do the deficit. I don't know Kerry's reasons, James. I also don't know Bush's reasons for why he does 90% of what he does. There are plenty of articles on the web about how Bush has completely abandoned the compassionate conservative platform he ran on, and went with an ultra-conservative agenda alienating a lot of Republicans. Let's overlook that major flip-flop, shall we?

I do know that when I look at democrats in history, JFK, Clinton, Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, etc. I liked what happened to the country.

I can't say the same for the republicans. Apparently, the best republican president there was, was Reagan. And all I know of his term, was when I was a teen and coming to terms with my sexuality, and gay people were dying all around me, he stood back and didn't do anything because 'gay people deserved it'.

Sorry, James, I'm not changing my vote. Nobody lies and deceives and flip flops and hurts democracy, including capitalism, like a Republican.

The economy under clinton was an abberation.

And the economy under Bush is an abomination.

First off, Hal, you are just being silly. Our economy under Bush has been growing the last few quarters. Given that he inherited a recession (stocks started their fall BEFORE he took office in Jan 2001), I'd say he has done the best he can with what he has.

BCB, Regarding Reagan, did you know his son is gay? the recent "contraversy" over his apparent hatred of gays is hogwash. Just because someone made a Made for TV movie claiming he was a homophobe doesnt make it true. In fact, his daughter recently wrote an editorial in which she spoke of numerous situations where he discussed homosexuality with her, and it was clear by her account that he wasn't nearly as uncomfortable about it as you would believe.

Furthermore, Since his presidency, I'd say that the rush to cure AIDS has faltered. Both under Clinton and Bush.

Clinton did really good for manufacturing? Did you know that Alan Greenspan has warned against protectionism of our manufacturing sector? Should Bush go against that advice?

Clinton did really good for doctors? Thats why certain states have such high malpractice insurance that no surgeons will go there.


"Maybe he realized that health care for all will help reduce the deficit. Maybe he wanted to pay down the deficit before he found out more Americans care about health care than they do the deficit. "

How would turning a private medical sector into a government BEAST possibly help the economy or reduce the deficit? Note, we are talking about the economy of the country, not the economy of the government.

Here is how gov healthcare could conceivably reduce the deficit - if we get taxed so much, that we simply don't notice/care anymore. But really, gov healthcare means MORE spending, not less. To say that it would reduce a deficit is crazy. And given that it would not be a private sector anymore, the effects on the economy are questionable at best.

"I don't know Kerry's reasons, James. I also don't know Bush's reasons for why he does 90% of what he does"

The difference is, Kerry is asking for my vote. Bush is already president. Kerry needs to outline his reasons before I ask him to be my president. Do you think that's asking for too much?

Untill Kerry's platform becomes more than vaporware, he is nowhere.

BCB, Regarding Reagan, did you know his son is gay? the recent "contraversy" over his apparent hatred of gays is hogwash.

yes, I knew his son was gay. Doesn't make him more tolerant. Pete Knights son was gay too. Not all parents of gays are tolerant.

As far as 'recent controversy', it's hardly recent in the gay community. ActUp (whose tactics I don't necessarily agree with) was formed during the Reagan years as a result of Reagan's passivity towards the death of thousands of Americans. Don't talk to me about Reagans tolerance unless you were there on the front lines of the plague, attending up to 4 funerals a week of people you knew and loved, while the rest of the country, led by that man did nothing except say it was God's wrath.

Just because someone made a Made for TV movie claiming he was a homophobe doesnt make it true.

No kidding. Living through it does.

Furthermore, Since his presidency, I'd say that the rush to cure AIDS has faltered. Both under Clinton and Bush.

I'd agree with that.

Here is how gov healthcare could conceivably reduce the deficit - if we get taxed so much, that we simply don't notice/care anymore.

Truthfully, James, I stand by my comment that health care, while the current situation sucks, isn't in the top 5 of my list of voting issues, so I haven't researched it all that much. I'm not sure though, why you are so concerned with reducing the deficit when you support Bush. What has he done to the deficit in the last 4 years? Apparently the deficit isn't your big issue either.

The difference is, Kerry is asking for my vote. Bush is already president. Kerry needs to outline his reasons before I ask him to be my president. Do you think that's asking for too much?

No, I don't think that's asking too much. Whenever I go to Kerry's website, I see a lot of detailed plans on what he intends to do. I don't see it as nebulous at all. But I do believe I am in the minority on that, and I'd concede that most people out there, like yourself, don't see any good in him at all. In that case, I'd suggest not voting for him. I'm not a Kerry recruiter. I'm also NOT voting for Bush.

I have to say James, that although I disagree with your philosophy, almost 100%, you are the most enjoyable to read on this site. You use facts, not insults. I'd love to debate with you, but I'd have to be the first to admit, I'm not one who has time to gather all the info and research needed for a debate. Looking at your blog, this is your business, not mine, I'd have to do it in my spare time and as such I couldn't compete. But it doesn't invalidate my political views that I hold for my family. And I'd also have to reiterate one final time, that the anti-Bush people on this site, do grow old with their constant cutdowns without providing any alternative. If Kerry isn't the answer for them, then they need to at least offer Nader, Mary Carey, Justine Bateman for President, ANYBODY. If all you do is bitch, bitch, bitch, about what is wrong and never offer any alternative towards improvement, then not only do you NOT convince those you are bitching too, but you also turn OFF those who might be on your side originally.

I'd say he has done the best he can with what he has.

It would be nice if just once you actually found some facts before responding with simplistic generalizations but be that as it may, you're wrong.

Structural damage has been done to the economy and it's going to be difficult to fix.

It's not all Bush, though: our Congressional representatives, on both sides of the aisle, having been enthusiastic participants.

James, it took me all of 5 minutes to find this on the web:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086677

Perhaps I don't need to do a lot of research to come up with the obvious. This man is far more qualified to combat terror than a man who cannot account for all his time in the National Guard, while never going overseas.

National security is one of my top 5 voting issues and Kerry wins that one hands down.