Where is all this additional money to pay for his plans going to come from?

To pick one item - regarding health care. His plan he states " the government will pick up 75% of the cost of catastropic health claims for employers who agree 1) to provide quality coverage for their employees, 2) share savings from lower premiums with their employees, and 3) adopt disease management programs and other incentives to improve overall employee health and reduce costs" (page 106 from his Our Plan for America - available on on http://www.johnkerry.com)

Where is the governments 75% share coming from? We are running a record deficit in this country, how can he expect to spend more money on more government programs and still give business and middle class Americans a tax break? The money to pay for these plans must come from somewhere. In my household I can't cut my income and still reduce my debt and maintain my current standard of living. I have to give up something.

In my opinion, all his plan does is make Americans more dependent on the government. Appears we are getting closer to a Socialist state ech day. My two cents as well.

The facts are he is the worst sitting president this country has ever had.

Yeah, whatever......and you want to replace him with a guy whose picture is enshrined in the Hanoi War Crimes Museum and praised by the communist north vietnamese for his "contributions" to their victory against US! I think Kerry should be rotting in a prison cell right next to his twin sister - Hanoi Jane.

Reply #16 By: Confused (Anonymous) - 9/16/2004 1:25:48 PM Where is all this additional money to pay for his plans going to come from? To pick one item - regarding health care. His plan he states " the government will pick up 75% of the cost of catastropic health claims for employers who agree 1) to provide quality coverage for their employees, 2) share savings from lower premiums with their employees, and 3) adopt disease management programs and other incentives to improve overall employee health and reduce costs" (page 106 from his Our Plan for America - available on on http://www.johnkerry.com)

And who's paying this? "Our" government? Don't they really mean us, the tax-payers?

Quite frankly, I don't care who you elect. Elect Arnie if you want. Just as long as it ain't Bush.

Here! Here!

OK, lets just let them become another dictatorship or Fundamentalist State.

That's what they were before, that's what they will be unless we stay there and indoctrine them for many years. We can't afford to continue to spend money in Iraq, as you know, so let us cut our losses on this whole poorly conceived debacle. What do you say?

We can't afford to continue to spend money in Iraq, as you know, so let us cut our losses on this whole poorly conceived debacle. What do you say?

Sorry Deference but I still say stay. I would rather spend 80 billion now, then eventualy 80 trillion and 8 million New Yorker lives if a Fundamentalist State is created in conjuction with Iran. Then they just set off a A-bomb in New York Harbor before unloading for inspection.

It don't matter how we got there, what matters is after we leave. If we would have not helped Germany after WWII than most likely the Iron curtain would have been at the boarder of Spain and Italy.

You have to admit, if we would have stayed a little longer in Germany after WWI then Hitler would not have taken power. That would have stopped WWII and aleast stopped 16 million dead.

That's My Two Cents

If we pulled out of Iraq without establishing a democracy, wouldnt just be a waste of the lives that have been lost? We are already there, we should see it through.

Work harder to internationalize the situation and with a better team is likely to get more international support.

Which countries are going to send additional troops to Iraq? Hint: France, Germany, Russia have said they will not.

Will cut taxes on all businesses by 5% and repeal the Bush tax cuts only on those who make $200,000 or more.

Did you misspeak, or do you have a poor understanding of US tax laws? For businesses whose income is taxed according to the same rules as individuals (sole propreitorship, partnership, S-corp) will their taxes go up or down?

Will focus on eliminating terrorists instead of launching into more "preemptive" follies like Iraq was.

Maybe you can help clear up Kerry's position on Iraq...

1. According to Kerry, was using force to overthrow Saddam, even though he didn't have WMD stockpiles, primarily the right decision or primarily the wrong decision?

2. Under what conditions would Kerry attack another country without UN approval?

Germany

Chancellor Schröder moves toward a German military mission in Iraq [LINK]

Germany is getting involved, Russia will not because they have enough problems with Chechnya right now.

France, well, they were the whole reason we went to Vietnam, and you want them to help us now, no thank you, just let them send money please. Plus last time they tried to help in the world they helped in a place named Rwanda.

Shozan....

That article is one year old.

You anti-bush mongers are practically foaming at the mouth.

Maybe, just maybe it is because of some tremendously poor policy decisions. Enough to make a conservative republican who helped vote him in want to knock on doors to vote him out.

Shozan.... That article is one year old.

Sorry about that not quite the link I wanted to use but was doing to much at once to keep track.

Here is the latest and greatest on Germany, France and Belgium.

France, Belgium delay NATO Iraq agreement
Link

Kerry on taxes: Will cut taxes on all businesses by 5% and repeal the Bush tax cuts only on those who make $200,000 or more. By doing this we will decrease the skyrocketing national debt.

I think at this point just repealing them will not work. He is going to have to have a more detailed plan then repealing taxes for people who earn more than 200,000. Keep in mind that these people are upper middle class with bills as well. We want them to go to the malls and buy things too. People earning 400,000 might be able to take that hit and still be able to do what they want.

I have to say though, as much as I don't want Bush, I do not see Kerry fixing the problems. I see him making it worst. Bush has to be convinced that he can not handle himself like he has for the past 4 years. Bush can fix his errors, but Kerry... not to sure he can do it.

At this point, I would vote for the people I want in the Senate and Congress that will keep Bush under control.

If you "really" think Kerry's going to help read this first!

Zell's Right, Kerry's Wrong by Joseph A. D'Agostino Posted Sep 10, 2004 Ever since Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia delivered his scorching speech at the Republican National Convention attacking John Kerry's record on defense issues, Kerry's partisans, including those in the liberal media, have been frantically laboring to discredit Miller. They have done everything from claiming that Miller lied to slanderously implying that the same man they lionized in 1992, when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, is really a closet racist. What they haven't done is present the relevant facts. So, what are those facts? The passage in Miller's speech that elicited the most vehement denials from the Kerryites simply listed the weapons systems Miller said Kerry opposed. No Response "Listing all the weapons systems that Sen. Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts," said Miller. "The B-1 bomber that Sen. Kerry opposed dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom. The B-2 bomber that Sen. Kerry opposed delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq. The F-14A Tomcats that Sen. Kerry opposed shot down Khadafi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D that Sen. Kerry opposed delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora. The Apache helicopter that Sen. Kerry opposed took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles that Senator Kerry opposed flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11. "I could go on and on and on," said Miller. "Against the Patriot missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's SCUD missiles over Israel. Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser. Against the Strategic Defense Initiative. Against the Trident missile." Are there sources that back up Miller's claims here? Yes. Kerry's own campaign literature and voting record. When Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984, he published a campaign document in which he promised to try to cancel "this year" all the weapons systems that Miller mentioned in his speech except the B-2 bomber and Trident missile. Kerry voted to cancel the B-2 bomber on Aug. 2, 1990 (roll call vote #208) and on Sept. 18, 1992 (roll call vote #216). Kerry voted on Aug. 11, 1995, to cancel funding for the Trident II nuclear missile for submarines (roll call vote #393). In a June 19, 2003, article in the Boston Globe, Kerry--now a wartime presidential candidate--admitted he had opposed the very weapons systems Zell Miller cited him for opposing. In this article, Kerry admitted some of his positions on weapons had been "ill-advised" and "stupid." But he still defended his opposition to some other weapons systems. "In his zeal to keep pace with [1984 Democratic primary opponent James] Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament," the Globe reported, "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of U.S. military might--the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks. These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them: the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. "He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet," the Globe continued. "In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were 'ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then.' But he defended his opposition at the time to the MX missile, the 'Star Wars' strategic defense initiative, and some other programs." The conclusion is irrefutable: Had Kerry actually succeeded in canceling the weapons systems he promised to fight to cancel when he was first elected to the Senate--or that he later specifically voted against in the Senate--every one of the weapons Miller listed Kerry as opposing would have been cancelled. The systems that in the words of the liberal Boston Globe became "the basis of U.S. military might" would not have been built. Ironically, it is Kerry's supporters who now want people to believe Kerry flip-flopped and actually supported the weapons he was elected vowing to oppose. Further, they argue that Kerry cannot be accused of "voting" against specific weapons systems merely because he sometimes voted against overall Defense authorizations or appropriations. Yet, this argument, implies that Kerry should not be credited for supporting specific weapons merely because he sometimes voted for overall Defense authorizations or appropriations. Interestingly enough, Kerry did vote for the Defense bill in 1985, his first year in the Senate. By the logic of Kerry's current supporters, that would mean he immediately betrayed his campaign pledges of 1984 and supported the very weapons systems he had just been elected opposing. Then, again, Kerry voted against the Defense authorization and appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and the Defense authorization in 1996. So, when should Kerry get credit for flip-flopping and abandoning the campaign promises that made him a senator? HUMAN EVENTS last week repeatedly asked the Kerry campaign if they could cite any instance between Kerry's 1984 campaign and 2003 interview with the Boston Globe in which Kerry ever expressly said he had changed his mind and now supported any of the weapons systems Miller listed in his Republican convention speech. The Kerry campaign took the question. But no one ever responded.

Here's the link: Link

First let me say, that I am not a supporter of either side. I think anyone that supports either side for sake of doing it is a fool. We need to make informed decisions on who the next president will be, personal politics aside.

I disagree that Mr. Kerry stands firm on issues, a scant few yes, but overall he has not been clear on what he stands for, and in many cases has changed his course. On with your points however:

Kerry on Iraq: Internationalize the situation, how international was the first Iraq war, or Bosnia? Doesn't Iternationalize still mean that it is led by the US, only we wear pretty blue helmets and call ourselves UN peacekeepers. In case you have not seen the news, we do have many countries already committed there. Otherwise, why would the insurgents be kidnapping them. As far as pull out, why would this president be any different than all the rest. Clinton sent us to Bosnia for only one year, to this day we still have troops there. And if democracy is not a requirement for success in Iraq, than what is? Depotism? It would not be morally right for us at this point to leave them with no government that will not protect the people. So if you want to live in a fantasy world that Kerry is going to pack up our bags and leave Iraq, you are most likely be mistaken.

Taxes: I never understand how tax cuts became evil for a while (when Bush proposed them), and now that Kerry is proposing them it is the best news since sliced bread. I personnally get a tax break from the Bush Cuts, and I know many others that did, and all make well under $200,000 per year (all under $40,000). I have not read anywhere that Mr. Kerry plans to reduce business taxes by 5%, most politicians would not promise a number. Besides don't most people that make over $200,000 a year either own businesses or stockholders in them? Would they also benefit from a 5% tax cut? Have you looked at what you are saying, it is the same political circular talk. (For those slower people, yes a stockholder and a business owner would benefit from a business tax cut.)

Health Care: I admit our system does need work, but modeling ourselves after Canada and England whose system is worse is not the answer. I cannot see how the government can preassure a private enterprise (HMO's, Drug Companies, etc..), to lower their rates. Let us face facts, if these companies were not in their business the government would have to do it. And what will that do to our tax situation? 70% to 80% taxation is common in most socialist nations, and that is where we would be heading if we gave the government the reigns on everything. I admit that drug costs are expensive here, and other countires are much cheaper for the COMMON drugs. One of the reasons we have high costs in the US is that we do research on many different types of drugs, even for diseases that only occur one in a million. The R&D costs a lot of money (I know many will chime in that there are many experimental drugs in other countries, we have them to, the problem in this case is not the drug companies but the FDA). A business will typically distributed it's operating expenses, so that means costs of all their products go up the same amount. This is the same in every business.

War on Terror: Personally, I do not want to send troops to distant places to die, but I also do not want innocent civilians at home to die also. Who says Bush's plan is not working? Have we been struck by terrorists here at home lately? Was there a suicide bomber at the mall that I did not hear about? Look at how many terrorists are in Iraq right now fighting us, I would think it is a huge success, since they are focusing so much at where we are now. How can one say that Iraq is a folly? It is a war, and President Bush said at the onset of the invasion of Afgahnastan(spelling?), it would be a long war. The Civil War took 4 years with over 500,000 causalties; World War I took about 5 years and had took over 5 million in allied causalties; World War II took over 5 years with 15 million dead (55 million counting civilians and axis forces); Korean War took about 3 years with over 2 million dead (only about 34 thousand americans); The Vietnam War lasted almost 15 years (8 for us in the US) with over 3 million dead (about 50 thousand americans, which I thougt that was higher). The point of all this is not justify us, but how long have we been fighting this war on Terror? Three years at the most, with far less than a million in causalties. The problem is the War on Terror is not like these wars of the past, fought over pieces of ground, definable battle fields. We knew what was theirs, they knew what was ours. Iraq is a perfect example of the war on terror, these terrorist organizations cross national boundries as they do in Iraq where many of the insurgents (especially the leaders) are not even from Iraq.

The final thought I want to leave you with, is not many focus on what Iraq wants. How many Iraq citizens have died fighting for their own freedom beside us. In World War II without the US involvement the invasion of Europe would never had happened. Did Hitler pose any real threat to us at the time? No, not until we got involved and he started sinking our shipping. But did he pose a real threat to our borders? Japan did, but did Hitler? We could have just fought the Japanese and waited for the outcome of the Eurpoean war before acting. No matter what you believe about our reasons for being there, there are many good reasons for us to be there. Our you proposing that we pull back to our borders and ignore the war? This happened in History, it was during the period just before World War II. Because many knew that America would not get involved due to our isolationalism they came to power, such as Hitler.

Many demcrats say we need to internationalize more, be I seriously do not believe the situation would be any different with UN involvment, in fact it would be worse. After all it was the UN that let Sadam ignore his agreement with them for 12 years. It does not matter if he had WMD's or not, he refused to honor an agreement he made for 12 years. Do not be a fool and believe he did it because he had nothing to hide, if it was not WMD's it was something else. If he truly had nothing to hide, he would have submitted to the UN and had this whole thing overwith years ago. Likely, he use the UN embargos to even further subjegate his people.

Enough said (proably too much), Left or Right, Democart or Republican, make your vote count in November and vote for the choice you feel is right based on the information you have, and not on what the masses are doing. Make an informed decision, will it be right? Who knows what the future will hold, but at least right or wrong you will know you made the best decision you could.

Good luck. The rest of the world, Australia included need your Democrats to win.