John Kerry and Troop Support

[tugmcmartin]

So i'm flipping through the channels last night looking for something on TV to watch and i come across CSPAN, which has a speech Mr. Kerry gave to the IAF (Firefighters org.) in Washington DC recently. Not sure when it was given, but i think it was from yesterday. Out of curiousity i stopped and listened for about 20 minutes. I really wanted to hear if he was going to outline any defined strategies for the continued fight on terror, supporting our troops in Iraq, bettering the economy, etc.

Well, after about ten minutes he started talking about how our troops were sent into battle in Iraq with inadequate protection (weapons and armor) and how he as president would make sure that they have the best armor and weapons available to them. He then brought up the $87 billion bill to support our troops in Iraq and tried to explain why he didn't support it. He said that the reason he voted "no" was because he wanted the $87 billion to come from the "very wealthiest" americans in the form of a decrease in the tax cut that Bush had proposed at the time. Instead of the $690 billion tax cut, he wanted to only have a $600 billion tax cut and use the saved $90 billion to pay for the troop funding.

Now, on the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Sure, okay, lets maybe not cut taxes so much and use the savings to fund our troops needs in Iraq. Sounds fine to me. But when its framed in the context in which Kerry stated it, it sounds absolutely petty and ridiculous. Basically he's saying that he will only properly fund our troops IF the right people (read: people making over $200,000/year) are paying for it. To me, this is kinda sickening. To deny our troops the proper funding that they rightly deserve simply because he thinks that only the "very wealthiest" should foot the bill is incredulous. He is putting his disdain for the rich above our troops safety and that makes me sick. When the safety of our troops is at question, you would hope that politicians could put their own ideologies aside and do whatever it takes to make sure that they are safe. Mr. Kerry has always said we shouldn't politicize 9/11 and the war in Iraq. But by linking his "no" vote to an issue over which americans pay for the funding, he has done exactly that. For a veteran who has been on the front lines of battle before and knows the dangers confronting ill-equipped soldiers, i expected more from Mr. Kerry on this issue.

Thanks for listening to this "venting". That part of his speech made my stomach turn.

T-

[JSE]

That's my biggest problem with him. He will say whatever the crowd in front of him wants to hear regardless of whether it makes any sense at all. Kerry, says he wants to provide the best armor and weapons but then votes against most defense spending. He then votes no on funding the war because the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" in his eyes. What a hypocrite. He so against the rich. I wish someone would ask him this question. If you are so adamant that the rich pay a bigger share of the taxes, what percentage above the taxes you owed did you pay last year? Did you pay 100% of the taxes owed? Did you pay 110%? Did you take any deductions? What a lying hypocritical piece of dung.

I guess he will answer those questions when he answers the questions about what foreign leaders said they want Bush out and him to win.

JSE

[jeskibuff]

this is kinda sickening. To deny our troops the proper funding that they rightly deserve simply because he thinks that only the "very wealthiest" should foot the bill is incredulous. He is putting his disdain for the rich above our troops safety and that makes me sick.
Once again, well said, Tug!

I was doing a little DUmpster diving earlier...came across threads like this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x465169

where the DUh'ers are trying to do damage control on Ketchup man.

According to one post, Kerry said "And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed."
So it's all a matter of timing, is it? Aren't the troops STILL getting shot at, J.F.K.?? When the troops were initially committed, weren't they in standard combat, shielded by the armor of tanks and vehicles? Once Baghdad was captured, it turned into guerilla-style warfare, where the body armor is more important.

Here's something else posted on that thread: But it's also true that as many as 40,000 US troops were sent to Iraq without the best-grade body armor. Frontline troops had the new vests, containing ceramic plates that can stop assault-rifle bullets, while others had only older designs that offered protection mainly against shrapnel and lower-velocity projectiles.
So, it's not that troops were completely WITHOUT body armor. The ones on the front lines had the best available. Others had "older designs". But the NEED was greatest when the bill was being pushed, and that's when Kerry decided to play his hand...and that wasn't in the best interest of the troops. Being a veteran himself, you'd think he'd know better, but I guess his ideology got in the way of common sense.

One more goodie to toss on the pile, also from a left-wing site referenced on that DUh thread: http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001388.html#more
In it, there is this quote from Kerry: "I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq"

So, how well did your scheme work, John? Did you offer any tangible suggestions for this "real plan"? :rolleyes:

HOW IN THE WORLD could it be done much better?

So, depriving funds to the troops will "secure their safety"? Now THAT'S a "real plan", isn't it???

Just what would you do to "stabilize" Iraq?? Be specific now!

You're full of hot air, Ketchup Man!

[FLZapped]

So i'm flipping through the channels last night looking for something on TV to watch and i come across CSPAN, which has a speech Mr. Kerry gave to the IAF (Firefighters org.) in Washington DC recently.

I guess that means you missed Bush talking with a bunch of folks from the US Commerce Organizatrion. He was talking abot health care and taxes.

Something I didn't know is that people who have small businesses that are unincorperated are paying taxes at the higher single rate. Which means Kerry's proposed removal of that part of the tax break from those evil rich people will hurt them and the peopple that work for them. There are millions of small businesses that operate that way under "subclass s"...

Anyway, interesting discussion about the new HSA's(Health Savings accounts) and Civic health groups...that's probably the wrong term - essentially the linking many small businesses together like a single group to purchase health care. For some reason, a few of the states have changed their laws so that many businesses can no longer participate in them and either have to give up on purchasing health care for their employees, or greatly reduce what they can do.

So the Bush administration is pushing a bill that will put them under federal authority so the states cannot negate them.

Anyway, the Health Savings account bill that his admin has passed allows individuals a couple thousand dollars,and couples five grand, totally tax free(as long as it is used on any health care need, including glasses), to be put into savings. essentially this self-insures the individual for routine medical care and then they only need a casastrophic plan for those unforseen things that require surgery, or other hospitalization costs.

Pretty clever. Takes the decision making out of the government's hands and puts it in the people's hands. Of course, that drives socialists like Kerry, Kennedy, and Heir Hilary nuts.

-Bruce

[tugmcmartin]

I guess that means you missed Bush talking with a bunch of folks from the US Commerce Organizatrion. He was talking abot health care and taxes.Actually, i did see that one too. The Kerry thing was Monday night and last night i did catch that meeting with Bush talking about the HSA's. That was very informative. Was cool to have people from the private sector there talking about their own experiences. Really puts a more personal touch to it all.

One thing that really surprised me was how at ease and comfortable Bush looked in that environment. Really reminded me of seeing Clinton do the "townhall" thing. No matter what you think of Clinton, one has to admit that he was one helluva salesman in those more informal settings. Bush has the same characteristics in that regard. He really came across as knowledgeable about the subject and very genuine about why he thought it would work. Kinda made me wonder if Kerry would be as effective in the same environment. I have a hard time seeing him doing the informal townhall meeting and looking as comfortable and at ease. Just an observation....

And here's another question. I hear lots of folks saying that Kerry's proposed tax increase is just for the top 2% of income earners - the very richest americans, i.e. those making over $200,000 a year. Maybe its just me and i'm dreadfully ill-informed about this, but its hard to believe that 98% of taxpayers make less than $200,000 a year. $200,000 is not a whole lot of money (though much more than my wife and i take home). I'm probably wrong here, but that number seems like a low percentage. Anyone know for sure?

T-

EDIT: PS- I just did a quick census search and learned that those that make at least $200,000/year are in fact the top 2.3% of taxpaying households. Wow. I wouldn't have believed it if i hadn't done the math myself. Scarily my family is in the top 15%. Never would have guessed that either. Am i not middle class? How did that happen?

[FLZapped]

EDIT: PS- I just did a quick census search and learned that those that make at least $200,000/year are in fact the top 2.3% of taxpaying households. Wow. I wouldn't have believed it if i hadn't done the math myself. Scarily my family is in the top 15%. Never would have guessed that either. Am i not middle class? How did that happen?

That certainly is interesting. We have what, 350 million people, or so, in this country? That would equate to about 7-8 million people. Something isn't adding up. I wonder how that is tallied. Is it based on what someone really takes home, or their gross income. In most small businesses, the owner will draw $50 to 75,000 and then the rest will go toward the business and taxes even though they are taxed on their gross intake.....so if it were by gross, the numbers just don't make sense. *shrug*

-Bruce

[tugmcmartin]

That certainly is interesting. We have what, 350 million people, or so, in this country? That would equate to about 7-8 million people. Something isn't adding up. I wonder how that is tallied. Is it based on what someone really takes home, or their gross income. In most small businesses, the owner will draw $50 to 75,000 and then the rest will go toward the business and taxes even though they are taxed on their gross intake.....so if it were by gross, the numbers just don't make sense. *shrug*

-Bruce
That info is from www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov).

I went to the income section, then opened up some tables with breakdowns of income per household. According that data, there were 111,278,000 households that reported income in 2002. 2,626,000 of those reported incomes of over $200,000. 2.3%

[bturk667]

Isn't it amazing how stupid some people can be? Sadly, since I am not a Kerry fan, and even less of a Bush fan; I'll have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Why, oh why, can't we get a good candidate?

[bturk667]

JSE, for your information, the reporter who quoted Kerry and broke the story about the foreign leaders checked his tape. Guess what? Kerry never said "Foreign leadres," he said "More leaders." What I do not understand is why was Kerry such a dumb-@ss - and still is - for not saying he was misquoted? He makes me schratch my head in disbelief!

[jeskibuff]

One thing that really surprised me was how at ease and comfortable Bush looked in that environment...He really came across as knowledgeable about the subject and very genuine about why he thought it would work.
You're not alone. Read this account at http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/weyrich/2004/mar08.html

You'll see verbage like: "for over 30 minutes, with no cue cards, President Bush laid out before a small group of us from conservative think tanks his reasoning in the conduct of foreign policy. It was the most lucid, most candid, most articulate exposition of why a President is doing what he is doing that I have ever heard in my 38 years in this town." and ""I wish we could have put THIS on television", the head of a major foundation remarked after the meeting."

[Chris]

That info is from www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov).

I went to the income section, then opened up some tables with breakdowns of income per household. According that data, there were 111,278,000 households that reported income in 2002. 2,626,000 of those reported incomes of over $200,000. 2.3%
I would have thought it would be more than that. $200k a year isn't all that much in the more populated areas.

[FLZapped]

Actually, i did see that one too. The Kerry thing was Monday night and last night i did catch that meeting with Bush talking about the HSA's. That was very informative. Was cool to have people from the private sector there talking about their own experiences. Really puts a more personal touch to it all.

One thing that really surprised me was how at ease and comfortable Bush looked in that environment. Really reminded me of seeing Clinton do the "townhall" thing. No matter what you think of Clinton, one has to admit that he was one helluva salesman in those more informal settings. Bush has the same characteristics in that regard. He really came across as knowledgeable about the subject and very genuine about why he thought it would work. Kinda made me wonder if Kerry would be as effective in the same environment. I have a hard time seeing him doing the informal townhall meeting and looking as comfortable and at ease. Just an observation....

Yeah, Carter was good one-on-one as well, just not so good at many other things. *sigh*
However, I do admire the humanitarian work that he does.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

That info is from www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov).

I went to the income section, then opened up some tables with breakdowns of income per household. According that data, there were 111,278,000 households that reported income in 2002. 2,626,000 of those reported incomes of over $200,000. 2.3%

Okay, still seems out of kilter. My guess is that many of those business owners reported what they are drawing off the business as their salary, regardless of what the business made in their name.

-Bruce