Why do you SUPPORT Kerry?

[Tireur]

Yeah, Do want to take what you have in your hand or would you prefer the box Carol Merrill is pointing to?

[kalivor]

Will this cost any money, do you think?

"We can build one America where we no longer have two healthcare systems. One for people who get the best healthcare money can buy and then one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs — millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We have a plan that will offer everyone the same health care your Senator has. We can give tax breaks to help pay for your health care. And we will sign into law a real Patients' Bill of Rights so you can make your own health care decisions."

Why would it be overly expensive? Cost you more money than you pay now (through whatever means) for your health insurance? The U.S. has among the highest (the highest? Can't remember. Might be #2) cost per capita when it comes to health care. The cost is also increasing more quickly in America than it is anywhere else in the world.

The system needs reforming, from any angle you look at it -- including the bottom-line cost to the average American angle. Here in Canada, I get the same health care as everyone else (well, almost -- some can afford to fly to the States and pay top dollar for what usually amounts to the same treatment, only faster), and pay less for it through my taxes than you do through other means.

How about this? Think there'll be any need for revenue to pay for this?

"We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else.

None of us believe that the quality of a child's education should be controlled by where they live or the affluence of their community.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We can build one public school system that works for all our children. Our plan will reform our schools and raise our standards. We can give our schools the resources they need. We can provide incentives to put quality teachers in the places and the subjects where we need them the most. And we can ensure that three million kids with a safe place to go after school. "

Yes, this is a problem ... because Bush never threw money at the education system? Because it's good policy not to have a policy in regards to education? Because having kids go to school in an environment where they can be safe and have the tools needed to learn (my oh my! books and pencils!) is clearly too expensive an America for you to accept?

Perhaps you think the following will be costless, or will have no unintended consequences in the economic disincentive department? Or that the companies affected aren't going to pass their higher costs on to you and me---that their shareholders are just going to reach into their wallets and pay out of their own private resources?

"So now you ask how are we going to pay for this? Well, here's how we're going to pay for it. Let me be very clear, for 98 percent of Americans, you will keep your tax cut — that's 98 percent. But we'll roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, close corporate loopholes, and cut government contractors and wasteful spending."

*Everything* has unintended consequences -- but if you think that closing tax loopholes and trying to put an end on wasteful spending is a bad thing, you've gone to the loony bin. Waving your hands, looking into your crystal ball, and stating that YOU'LL end up paying the taxes of the wealthy doesn't amount to a strong argument. Might you end up paying some of this through increased prices? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But how much more? They were going to increase their prices anyway -- the tax-cuts leave you with more money in your wallet to spend on their products. You don't think that the large corporations were planning on just letting an average American's fortunes grow, when they could be getting that money for themselves ...

Then there's this perennial emocratic mantra:

"We will raise the minimum wage"

A minimum wage is a price floor in the labor market, nothing more. It would probably take a course in macroeconomics to explain why price controls, floors and ceilings, are Bad Things. And of course, you'd probably wave away all the empirical evidence in the world with impassioned cries of "Fairness!" and "Justice!" I understand this. I have encountered a lot of it over the years, from people who are convinced that the real world is susceptible to wishful thinking, and that somehow, if you just have enough empathy, economics just melts away...

Well, got to agree that minimum wage doesn't work -- it's short term gain before the market "corrects" itself making for long term pain.

Now, surely here's one goal that is so worthy that it won't require any money to pay for it:

"We will double our Special Forces, and invest in the new equipment and technologies so that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world."

Again ... what are you arguing? That Bush, in comparison, will stop spending on the military? I'm confused.

Doubtless this, another worthy goal, will be free?

"With our credibility restored, we can work with other nations to secure stockpiles of the worlds most dangerous weapons and safeguard this dangerous material. We can finish the job and secure all loose nukes in Russia."

Wow ... finishing something that you're already committed to, huh? I'm sure it'll cost more with the goodwill of other nations than it would without (the current situation). Of course, whether that goodwill would actually be forthcoming is another issue altogether ...

I don't see what the point of this little tirade has been. Yes, things cost money. What Bush promises, what Kerry promises -- all costing money. If you're looking for someone who promises to do something for free, you're looking in the wrong place. Nobody's going to run their campaign by saying "we're going to take money out of education and social security!" It may be there between the lines, but spending has to be seen as wasteful by the public before they'll campaign on getting rid of it.

I'm assuming that it was to set up this little conclusion, which has no relation to the set of points that came before it. A good conclusion, to be sure, but it seems to come out of the blue.

Or---now here's an idea!---you could just ask yourself why on earth you, who along with the many others who have conceived such a great hate for Bush, constantly read into and interpret his every word and act, and insist that you know what he "means", what he "implied", that he "lied" or "deceived" or what have you; why in light of that attitude you feel you have any right to insist that I cannot do the same with Kerry and Edwards? Why I must show you a bald, exact, forthright statement or be "wrong", while you ( and Kerry, and Sharpton, and Moore, and Franken, and Goldberg, and Garofalo, etc ad nauseam ) get a pass on that score?

[esskreemr]

Some largish assumptions there. ( Congratulations, you too may qualify to be an economist! )


Perhaps not. That's how I read it, though. Maybe ess will settle the issue presently.

Jeff was correct. I didn't bother worrying about the date because I fully realize that this is a continuing problem not solely based on which party controls the White House.

The main idea that I was attempting to present (which I failed, no sarcasm), was that there are MANY corporate welfare reforms that can be implemented to save a substantial amount of money.

Let me state that I am not against reforming social expenditures. I do believe that there is a huge amount of waste and fraud. However, each program needs to be looked at VERY carefully for the effects that any savings may have, negative or positive.

[/quote]

You are more optimistic than I. Considering the amount of tinkering that's gone on, and the chancy nature of the demographic and accounting assumptions that are used, I think there's too much of smoke and mirrors to depend on its solvency...and I won't.

This is one area that inq and I may agree on. I guess it would depend on what qualifies as solvency. Based on what I have read, the SS fund has been raided continuously by Repubs and Dems. I'll defer...

As I often say, that's the good thing about pessimism. The pessimist always expects the worst. If it doesn't happen, he's pleasantly surprised. If it does, he has at least the comfort of being able to say "I told you so". The optimist, OTOH, is doomed to being proved right at best, and badly disappointed at worst. And usually the latter, in my experience.

The problem with both pessimism and optimism is that if you look for a certain outcome, positive or negative, you tend to find only indicators that support your position.

The pessimist says "This glass is half empty",
the optimist says "This glass is half full"
when in fact it is neither half empty nor half full and yet both at the same time.

[esskreemr]

Uh, I support John Kerry for President because he has, uh, a uh, secret "plan" for the, uh, economy. He, uh, can't tell you what it, uh, is, you know, because it's, uh, a secret. Well, he could tell you but then he'd have to, uh, you know, kill you.

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

To the right you will find "detailed" plans that you can download and peruse at your leisure. Of course, they are not nearly as detailed as the current Presidents, uh economical plans; wait what were those again? I can't seem to find anything other than more tax cuts. Hey if it didn't work the first time (or had a temporary, marginal effect), maybe it will work a second time!

I also support John Kerry for President because he has, uh, a uh, secret "plan" for Iraq, just like my, uh, hero, Richard Nixon had for, uh, Vietnam. He, uh can't tell you what it, uh, is, you know, because it's, uh, a secret. You know.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Here's another one of those "secrets". Of course, the secret is that John Kerry's plan for Iraq doesn't differ that much from Bush's. There are several key differences, though that could make or break the Iraq effort. As you said, these are secret and I'm not allowed to tell you...

Oh yeah, just to make sure you don't miss the hidden link, it's on the right hand. They are available in pdf format so you can download them if you want.

[esskreemr]

Speaking of "brainwashed"...

Whereas, the allegations that, for example, "Bush had no plan for Iraq" is just gospel, because blowhards on the other side insist that it's so...

He also inherited a slowing economy, a dot.com bust, and a due bill rom al Qaeda. But of course, those are immaterial---it's all Bush incompetence and greed, right, right...

You are the Cut and Paste Master! All hail.....zzzzzz....

I generally cut and paste items that are direct quotes or information with citations. Perhaps I should refrain from this practice and switch to the inherently superior "Your wrong because I said so" tactic where I provide meager comments like "your brainwashed", or the highly informational and sarcastic "Oh so that's true just because the other side says it true" arguement with no quantifiable proof for rebuttal.

[Inquartata]

Why would it be overly expensive? Cost you more money than you pay now (through whatever means) for your health insurance? The U.S. has among the highest (the highest? Can't remember. Might be #2) cost per capita when it comes to health care. The cost is also increasing more quickly in America than it is anywhere else in the world.

And yet---if a thing can be made still more expensive ( and less efficient ) it's government that can do it...

So yes, if I'm going to have to pay not only for my own health care but, via taxes, for that of everyone currently not covered, or partially covered, then yes, I suspect it's going to cost me---and all of us---more than it does now. One way or another. We'll just stop paying premiums and start paying higher taxes.

The system needs reforming, from any angle you look at it

Most systems do. But given human imperfections and influences like inertia, greed, lack of imagination, overenthusiasm, blindness to unintended consequences, etc, etc, etc, as often as not reforms make things worse instead of better. Especially when you involve politicians, special interests, and bureaucrats. I shudder to think of it...

including the bottom-line cost to the average American angle.

Well...currently the system still obeys the laws of supply and demand to some extent. Price controls are almost always Bad Things economically, and if you're talking about forcing lower prices that's what you're advocating. There are all kinds of reasons for the high cost of medical care, and not all of them are to be solved by fiat. ( Or Audi, either. )

Here in Canada, I get the same health care as everyone else (well, almost -- some can afford to fly to the States and pay top dollar for what usually amounts to the same treatment, only faster), and pay less for it through my taxes than you do through other means.

And your population is HOW large compared to ours, again?

But in any event I suspect that your perception of how little you pay may be askew. Unless you remember a time when you didn't have national health care, and your taxes were less, and you have controlled for all other possible factors. Which, who has?

Yes, this is a problem ... because Bush never threw money at the education system?

Rather because Kerry would like to throw much more, from all appearances, and will still not get results. And because it won't be his own money he throws, it'll be ours.

Because it's good policy not to have a policy in regards to education?

Because it's better to have no policy than an expensive one that doesn't work.

Because having kids go to school in an environment where they can be safe and have the tools needed to learn (my oh my! books and pencils!) is clearly too expensive an America for you to accept?

Oh look, someone is playing the ubiquitous "Think of the children!" card. Also known as argumentum ad misericordiam, or Appeal to Pity. Which is still a fallacy, even when it invokes images of huge-eyed Dickensian orphans without ( gasp! ) pencils ( or more likely these days, laptops and theater arts programs ).

*Everything* has unintended consequences -- but if you think that closing tax loopholes and trying to put an end on wasteful spending is a bad thing, you've gone to the loony bin.

And if you think that politicians are either suited or inclined to do those things, you have long since preceded me thither.

This loophole-closing has been tried before. The results have not been notably beneficial. It's one of the reasons why the federal tax codes run to more volumes than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. ( Of course, it does provide jobs for an awful lot of accountants, lawyers and clerks, both private and public, so maybe in the Democratic world that's a good thing. )

Waving your hands, looking into your crystal ball, and stating that YOU'LL end up paying the taxes of the wealthy doesn't amount to a strong argument.

a) Straw man.

b) You forgot to say "in your humble opinion".

c) It's as good as you poring over chicken entrails to conclude that Kerry's "plan" will work. ( "This time for sure! )

d) Or is it better in your view to do something, anything, even if it's ineffectual or even harmful, just for the sake of appearances?

Might you end up paying some of this through increased prices? Possibly. Maybe even probably.

If you understand anything about economics, the word you want is "inevitably".

But how much more?

A fair question. Depends upon the elasticity of supply for the individual producs and services produced by a multiplicity of industries and companies, and on a lot of other things as well. But one thing is certain: it WILL be more than I am paying now. That's not exactly an appealing prospect however you slice it.

They were going to increase their prices anyway

You know this---how? ( Don't tell me, go directly to the National Association of Manufacturers, they'll make you a very wealthy man...so you can pay more taxes, as you so yearn to do. )

You don't think that the large corporations were planning on just letting an average American's fortunes grow, when they could be getting that money for themselves ...

Oooh, those awful rapacious corporations, always keeping the little guy down...class warfare, anyone?

Come on. Over 50% of all American households have entered the investor class. The executives and employees and shareholders of those evil corporations, and their family members, and THEIR family members, are PART of "average America". It's not the Robber Barons vs. Bob Cratchitt.

Again ... what are you arguing? That Bush, in comparison, will stop spending on the military? I'm confused.

Esskreemr kept asking me where in Edwards' speech there were any things which portended higher taxes, greater social costs. That's one. No moral judgement implied, it's one of the Kerry plans that I find laudable. But it WILL cost money.

Wow ... finishing something that you're already committed to, huh?

A small point: finishing something someone else committed us to, with which curent policymakers may not agree. ( I wonder if Kerry will continue the SDI initiative just because "we're committed to it"? )

But again, it's a laudable goal. I wish we weren't going about it by in effect buying the stuff from other countries, but it's a laudable goal. It will, however, be costly, which is what ess was asking for evidence of in Edwards' speech.

I don't see what the point of this little tirade has been.

Perhaps because you aren't ess, and don't realize what he was asking for, and are coming in to the argument late. I was answering him, not tugging at your sleeve. You may be puzzled, but I doubt he is. ( Incensed or in vehement disagreement, yes, but I suspect he at least understands it. )

I'm assuming that it was to set up this little conclusion, which has no relation to the set of points that came before it. A good conclusion, to be sure, but it seems to come out of the blue.

Then you haven't been following the whole dialogue closely enough. Not really my fault, what?

[Inquartata]

Jeff was correct. I didn't bother worrying about the date because I fully realize that this is a continuing problem not solely based on which party controls the White House.

Ok...but wasn't the nexus of our whole debate "Kerry will do better than Bush"? I mean, I agree that government and business are too incestuously involved, but what does that go to demonstrate?

The main idea that I was attempting to present (which I failed, no sarcasm), was that there are MANY corporate welfare reforms that can be implemented to save a substantial amount of money.

Probably...but see my comments to kalivor above, regarding why I am dubious of the odds of successful reforms when politicians, special interests and bureaucracies are the ones promising them. It just seems that any time such reform has been attempted, it's made matters worse, increased the complexity and merely caused businesses to seek out or create new loopholes to replace those lost---and since of necessity it's the legal system that's being addressed, adding new rules, new language, new restrictions and caveats and processes merely tends to fertilize the weeds instead of uprooting them.

What's needed is ruthless simplification, wholesale use of the axe, not the pruning shears. Clear out the undergrowth and start over. Slash and burn. But neither party has the support or the political courage for that, despite the periodic rhetoric. Too many have too many personal crops planted in the garden....

This is one area that inq and I may agree on.

Gasp! "It's the big one! I'm comin' to join you, Elizabeth! Lamont! I can't feel my legs! It's all goin' dark!"

The problem with both pessimism and optimism is that if you look for a certain outcome, positive or negative, you tend to find only indicators that support your position.

Sort of like political positions...

The pessimist says "This glass is half empty",
the optimist says "This glass is half full"
when in fact it is neither half empty nor half full and yet both at the same time.

Or, as someone I can't remenber said, what's important is whether the glass started OUT full or empty...

[Inquartata]

Perhaps I should refrain from this practice and switch to the inherently superior "Your wrong because I said so" tactic where I provide meager comments like "your brainwashed", or the highly informational and sarcastic "Oh so that's true just because the other side says it true" arguement with no quantifiable proof for rebuttal.

No, no, that won't work, either. You should just surrender!

[kalivor]

And yet---if a thing can be made still more expensive ( and less efficient ) it's government that can do it...

touche

And your population is HOW large compared to ours, again?

But in any event I suspect that your perception of how little you pay may be askew. Unless you remember a time when you didn't have national health care, and your taxes were less, and you have controlled for all other possible factors. Which, who has?

Well, my point wasn't that the cost of health care in Canada (or anywhere else) hasn't been increasing. It's taking up larger and larger chunks of our GDP every year -- the point is that it's not nearly as fast an increase as in the U.S.

Funnily enough, groups in the States are trying to Canadianize their health care, while groups in Canada are trying to Americanize. Grass is greener on the other side, I suppose. Except for you and I, who clearly feel that our systems are superior.

Oh look, someone is playing the ubiquitous "Think of the children!" card. Also known as argumentum ad misericordiam, or Appeal to Pity. Which is still a fallacy, even when it invokes images of huge-eyed Dickensian orphans without ( gasp! ) pencils ( or more likely these days, laptops and theater arts programs ).

Hardly. I'm saying that having an education policy (in which, among other things, public schools are properly funded) is a good thing. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you think it's a bad thing.

Because it's a fallacy? I wasn't trying to appeal to pity, really ... it was more of a concern over the state of the school system.

I don't know how it is where you are, but after cuts here a few years ago, it was fairly common for teachers in some areas to be buying *basic* supplies (such as pencils, chalk, etc.) for their classrooms, because the school wouldn't provide them. I suppose this isn't necessarily the case south of the border, but wouldn't have been surprised if it was.

Personally, I believe public schooling is a good thing. Better to spend a bit more money on it and have it be effective than just burning billions of dollars by spending it on an "education" system that rarely allows students to learn much.

But, then again, I'm a crazy left-wing Canadian. If you disagree with the above, we can probably argue all day without getting anywhere. Eventually even calling each other names!

And if you think that politicians are either suited or inclined to do those things, you have long since preceded me thither.

Nah ... but who else has the power to close loopholes? Damn me and my optimism.

b) You forgot to say "in your humble opinion".

My opinion's humble now? Nobody told me.

c) It's as good as you poring over chicken entrails to conclude that Kerry's "plan" will work. ( "This time for sure! )

Hey ... I don't know Kerry's plan. I don't even particularly care about anybody's plan, outside of foreign policy and the candidate's potential to blow a hole in the world's economy.

Since neither's platform is likely to do the latter, I'm a Kerry supporter (marginally), given Bush's track record of not actually listening to leaders of other countries.

d) Or is it better in your view to do something, anything, even if it's ineffectual or even harmful, just for the sake of appearances?

Who's planning on doing harmful stuff, now? I see how some of this disagrees with your ideology, but very little of it is "harmful," even if much of it will prove to be ineffectual. I'm sure that someone here has enough time on their hands to make a list of every policy in the 20th century that was ineffectual, hence a waste of money. Or maybe not -- I suspect that list is very, very long. You'll find that it's not limited to any one political party,though.

Oooh, those awful rapacious corporations, always keeping the little guy down...class warfare, anyone?

?

This is what bothers me most about your arguments ... making fun of an argument makes the point disappear. The point isn't that the "robber barons" are trying to keep the average person down. It's that when the average person has more spending power, and the cost of distributing goods is on the rise (check the oil prices), it's easy to raise prices: The cost of delivering the product to the consumer is higher, and the consumer now has improved means with which to pay any sort of price increase to offset those costs.

That said, economics isn't an exact science, and I have no chicken entrails handy ... maybe time will prove me wrong. Or maybe it won't get a chance. Or maybe Mr. Greenspan will perform miraculous rituals with the interest rates, and slay the inflation demon for all time ...

Perhaps because you aren't ess, and don't realize what he was asking for, and are coming in to the argument late. I was answering him, not tugging at your sleeve. You may be puzzled, but I doubt he is. ( Incensed or in vehement disagreement, yes, but I suspect he at least understands it. )

Then you haven't been following the whole dialogue closely enough. Not really my fault, what?

Nah ... I haven't been. Doesn't help that it's occurring in 5 or 6 different threads at once. I just find it odd that you consider some of these things a waste of money, or think that essk meant that Kerry wasn't pledging to spend any new money, or any old money in new ways -- which pretty much seems to be the case, as you're going through the whole campaign platform and pointing out that things cost money.

Still not looking back, I have to think that the question was: Do these things cost more money than Kerry is claiming? Will he or will he not have the means to make these changes with the tax-cut rollback that he's planning?

Although these threads are getting pretty much out of control -- at this point, everybody could be claiming that Bush/Kerry's platform contains things which cost no money at all, while Kerry/Bush's platform will force taxes to be raised to 99%/give the country a trillion-trillion defecit a year.

I'm honestly wondering why you're arguing anymore. I'm wondering why I'm arguing anymore ... I don't even vote for your President ...

[esskreemr]

And yet---if a thing can be made still more expensive ( and less efficient ) it's government that can do it...

So yes, if I'm going to have to pay not only for my own health care but, via taxes, for that of , then yes, I suspect it's going to cost me---and all of us---more than it does now. One way or another. We'll just stop paying premiums and start paying higher taxes.

So do you believe that you are not already paying for everyone currently not covered, or partially covered? These people (I've been one of them at some point in time) tend to wait until they can't stand the pain before going to seek help. They will also tend to seek care in the emergency room, because most hospitals aren't allowed to refuse emergency care to someone because they don't have the correct coverage. This bill is passed onto those who can pay or have coverage.

This creates several potential issues with putting off care to this point:
1)Treatment is now probably more expensive. Something that may have been taken care of with a checkup and antibiotics, now requires an overnight stay and surgery.
2)An acute problem may become a chronic problem requiring longer and, again more expensive care.
3)The emergency room is now a "I've waited so long it has become an emergency" room leading to possible saturated use of emergency facilities.
4)The benefits of having a general practitioner "check you out" for potential health issues is lost. Early intervention of minor issues that could escalate to a serious health issue is now impossible. Should a specialist in Emergency/Trauma medicing be the family doctor?

[esskreemr]

NEVER!!!

I don't mind retreating a little to gain better positioning...

[Inquartata]

Grass is greener on the other side, I suppose. Except for you and I, who clearly feel that our systems are superior.

Not that I don't think the way we do things here isn't rife with problems, mind you. I just don't think that exchanging them for a whole new set is a particularly good idea, especially when one considers that the transition is bound to be costly---both fiscally and in terms of the learning curve.

I'm saying that having an education policy (in which, among other things, public schools are properly funded) is a good thing. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you think it's a bad thing.

I don't think I said it was "a bad thing". I do get tired of the thesis that Kerry-Edwards' policy will, perforce, be a BETTER thing, because it's theirs ( or because it's not Bush's ), or especially because they want to spend more money on it. That seems to be the politician's answer to any and every problem: throw more money at it. If it doesn't respond favorably, rinse and repeat. And don't forget to keep on making pious and heartfelt statements about valuing the children whom it doesn't seem to be helping all that much. I am perplexed about why voters keep on buying that premise despite the fact that we've been doing it for 50 years, Democrat and Republican, even as the results still keep on deteriorating...

I wasn't trying to appeal to pity, really

OK. Maybe it's just that sarcasm is a blunt instrument.

after cuts here a few years ago, it was fairly common for teachers in some areas to be buying *basic* supplies (such as pencils, chalk, etc.) for their classrooms, because the school wouldn't provide them. I suppose this isn't necessarily the case south of the border, but wouldn't have been surprised if it was.

I don't know. I don't have kids, so I'm not reall current on the issue. Though it would seem to me that maybe pencils would be something PARENTS should be providing their kids, rather than the schools. Maybe Peach would know.


But the bigger problem is that the money going into the school system is not being SPENT properly. It goes into building gyms and football fields, into trips to conferences for principles and administrators, into bureaucratic "overhead" and "expenses", into design and delivery of standardized tests, etc., instead of into education. Or such is my impression, at any rate. And I think that's a problem that is inherent in the fact that it's a government-run system. State and federal bureaucrats and legislators are never going to be able to deal with the problem until they admit that they are PART of the problem, and that simply pouring more dollars in is not the solution in and of itself.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...5200040802.gif

Personally, I believe public schooling is a good thing. Better to spend a bit more money on it and have it be effective than just burning billions of dollars by spending it on an "education" system that rarely allows students to learn much.

"A bit"...is that like Senator Dirksen's saying, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money"?

Alas, there's no such thing as "a bit" to Washington. But a nation has many priorities, they cannot all be optimally funded. Unless one is a politician on campaign, that is.

who else has the power to close loopholes?

Maybe independent regulators? But of course no politician is going to surrender power to a truly independent regulator.

I don't know Kerry's plan.

Neither does anyone else, including, I rather suspect, Mr. Kerry...or if he does, he's not sharing any real details. Plenty of indignant declarations and fervent ( if vague ) promises, though. For instance:

John Kerry and John Edwards will establish a National Education Trust Fund to ensure that schools always get the funding they need.

Hmm, I thought Congress did that stuff...

They will also ensure that No Child Left Behind works for schools, states, and teachers by rewarding those who meet higher standards and rewarding schools that turn around and improve.

Much the same things Bush has said. How exactly will Kerry succeed where he failed? What will he do differently, specifically? No answers forthcoming, as far as I can tell.

As president, John Kerry will enact a new bargain that offers teachers more,

Swell. But how?

including better training

What sort? Conducted by whom? At the local, the state or the federal level? Paid for how, and by whom? Can he in fact even be bothered to define "better"? Apparently not.

and better pay in troubled schools,

I thought that was a state purview? Maybe he's just going to send the states more money ( no strings attached, of course ). All states equally? From what source? How will he get Congress to appropriate the funding? And again, what does "better" mean? Higher? How MUCH higher? Straight salary? Bonuses? Fringe benefits?

Nothing.

and asks for more in return, including fast, fair ways to make sure that teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.

What SORT of "ways"? "Fast fair ones, naturally! "

The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children.

And the Questions continue to out-rebound the Answers, folks! This game is a blowout!

candidate's potential to blow a hole in the world's economy.

In all fairness, the power of any leader to do that is highly overrated by most people. Economies are not such fragile things as all that, and like the oceans they have their own deep currents and storms quite independent of the King standing on shore ordering the tide to go out...

I'm a Kerry supporter (marginally), given Bush's track record of not actually listening to leaders of other countries.

Why is this important? Seriously? Since their national interests are all going to vary from ours, what good is their "input"? And in case you didn't remember, what incensed the left wasn't "not listening", it was "listening and then not accepting 'no' as the final answer'"...

Who's planning on doing harmful stuff, now?

Oh, why, the Antichrist Bush, hadn't you heard? He is wantonly, deliberately planning to rape the environment, rob everyone of their liberty, murder American soldiers, steal Iraq's oil, subvert elections, pack the Supreme Court with religious zealots, adulterate the world's food supply, and move the economy wholesale to China!

Sorry. ( See, I told you sarcasm was a blunt instrument! )

Actually, I don't think anyone is proactively "planning" anything harmful. Although I can almost guarantee you that there are certain people ( they know who they are! ) who are going to read my jocular statement above and nod in all seriousness, convinced that it's actually understatement. No, it's more a matter of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions...

I see how some of this disagrees with your ideology, but very little of it is "harmful," even if much of it will prove to be ineffectual.

An ineffectual policy costs as much to implement as an effectual one. Wasting money is by definition "harmful", if only to those from whom the money was taken. Then there's opportunity cost. And that's just if I don't disagree that there are not likely to be actual deleterious effects...of the which I am not convinced.

This is what bothers me most about your arguments ... making fun of an argument makes the point disappear.

Then make an argument that isn't so exaggerated as to invite hilarity. I mean, really, now! "You don't think that the large corporations were planning on just letting an average American's fortunes grow, when they could be getting that money for themselves"? As if "large corporations" were, in the first place, sentient beings capable of forming intent independent of the hundreds or thousands of diverse individuals who comprise them---and then acting in concert to squelch the dreams of the working man! ( Stereotyping, BTW. ) As if an assistant VP of Quality Control, say, couldn't possibly qualify as an "average American" or have any goal but that of robbing the public. As if a handful of execs at Enron and Worldcom are, obviously, the norm, no proof needed. As if your average businessman actually thinks about "getting all the money" in the world for his company...leaving none to customers with which to buy his wares. As if he plots to do just this...

What is that but the suummation of a weltanschaaung which sees "big business" pitted implacably against the "average" man, the former trying affirmatively to keep the latter from getting ahead? In other words, class warfare?

Businesses have one goal: to earn a profit. A return on their owners' investment. Often, those owners ARE "average Americans". They certainly want to outcompete their rivals, but they have no leisure to spare to think about overarching social concepts such as impoverishing the proletariat...

It's that when the average person has more spending power, and the cost of distributing goods is on the rise (check the oil prices), it's easy to raise prices:

No. That's a deceptively appealing supposition to anyone who doesn't understand how the economics of a free market system works, but it omits any consideration of the way supply and demand actually interact and thus is fatally flawed. Any industry or firm's ability to raise it's price depends on its individual profit-maximizing equation, which in turn depends on the elasticity of the demand function it faces. That is, how sensitive is the market for the product to price? Are there substitutes? Is the product a necesity or a luxury? If we raise our price, will we lose so much in volume that it will cancel out the increase in revenue from the price hike? Even leave us WORSE off instead of better?

At the extreme, in a perfectly competitive, nondifferentiated market like, say, wheat, for one producer to raise price would be fatal: it would lose ALL of its business to competitors. No market is in fact perfectly competitive, but the that only lessens the force of the model, it does not vitiate it. Raising price is difficult and chancy even in the best of times for many industries, and it is a matter of finely considered adjustment, not of the CEO waking up one day and saying "Hey, the economy is improving so people can afford to pay double for our widgets!"

I have often thought that every voting citizen ought to be required to demonstrate that he has had a minimum of two semesters of economics at the college level, maybe Micro 101 and Macro 101. There'd be a lot more sensible decision-making going on in the world if people could recognize the economic sophistry of politicians on the stump and in office when they heard it...

I just find it odd that you consider some of these things a waste of money, or think that essk meant that Kerry wasn't pledging to spend any new money, or any old money in new ways

No, from what I can see he just approves of him spending a LOT more. And doesn't mind that it'l have to be taken from those who actually earned it in order that he may do so. And thinks anyone who objects to that is somehow a heartless ignorant stooge of the plutocrats pulling Bush's strings.

Yes, that's MUCH better. ( There's that darned blunt instrument again! You see how nettling it is? How it predisposes one to respond in kind? )

Still not looking back, I have to think that the question was: Do these things cost more money than Kerry is claiming? Will he or will he not have the means to make these changes with the tax-cut rollback that he's planning?

Heh, you don't actually expect us to stay on topic, do you? Where's the fun in that?

I'm honestly wondering why you're arguing anymore. I'm wondering why I'm arguing anymore ... I don't even vote for your President ...

Because it's not whether you win or lose, but how you pay the game! If we didn't enjoy the process for it's own sake we wouldn't bother. For my part, I enjoy a good argument. And I don't even have to pay John Cleese for one here! ( I would have put a grinning gremlin here, but apparently I have "used too many images". So use your imagination! )

[Inquartata]

So do you believe that you are not already paying for everyone currently not covered, or partially covered?

I've been without health insurance for most of my life. Never went to an emergency room. When I needed a doctor, I paid for it myself. Just like they used to do BEFORE health insurance and HMOs. What a concept, eh?

And I was diligent about "preventive maintenance". I doubt I was the only person in America behaving like this, ie responsibly. So yes, I think there are a lot of people for whose care I am not currently paying. Because this putative universal health care system is not just going to bring in the unhealthy indigent about whom you're talking, but the healthy indigent, and the healthy and unhealthy who could pay for their care but would rather not, and even the relatively affluent who are now paying the exorbitant individual-policy premiums which subsidize the others...

When you provide a free good, or one that seems free, you remove the incentive to minimize cost. Because now there isn't a cost to the user. Now no matter how much or how little you use, it's still free, or nearly so. Hence quantity demanded explodes for that good, without the restraint of price. Got a hangnail? See the doctor. Consume scarce resources. Got a headache? Hey, I can get a few hours off work AND see the doctor. Got a cold? Doctor won't do you any good, but millions don't know that, or care. All of this is free, so why not address every ache and pain, real or imaginary, minor as well as major?


But there ARE still costs, only now they're hidden...and because quantity demanded has skyrocketed, so too will those costs. And because many of the users will be so low on the income scale that they don't pay taxes, the burden shifts upward onto those who do...and who are nominally the more productive members of the society. Is this any way to encourage success and productivity?

[kalivor]

'm a Kerry supporter (marginally), given Bush's track record of not actually listening to leaders of other countries.

Why is this important? Seriously? Since their national interests are all going to vary from ours, what good is their "input"? And in case you didn't remember, what incensed the left wasn't "not listening", it was "listening and then not accepting 'no' as the final answer'"...

Well, I was stating my opinion as someone from a foreign country. I don't think that argument applies particularly to you, or most others on the board ... I'm not sure why you took my statement out of it's context there.

Well, other than the fact that it's fun.

There'd be a lot more sensible decision-making going on in the world if people could recognize the economic sophistry of politicians on the stump and in office when they heard it...

But ... then what would we debate? Real issues?

Heh, you don't actually expect us to stay on topic, do you? Where's the fun in that?

I dunno ... I think we need to make some subtle shifts in our arguments in order to eventually turn this into a ROW thread, though.

[Inquartata]

Well, I was stating my opinion as someone from a foreign country.

OK. So, do you feel that your leaders ought to listen attentively to Bush's opinions about how to conduct you national affairs?

But ... then what would we debate? Real issues?

You're right. What was I thinking? I should be promoting conditions for more arguments, not less...

I dunno ... I think we need to make some subtle shifts in our arguments in order to eventually turn this into a ROW thread, though.

LOL!

How about we argue about who started it? ( Clearly I started extending my posts first! )

[Rogue]

How about we argue about who started it? ( Clearly I started extending my posts first! )

But doesn't a parry post, no matter how poorly performed, gain ROW?

[Inquartata]

But doesn't a parry post, no matter how poorly performed, gain ROW?

Unless it misses. Then it's just a search.