Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (7780)	3/16/2004 5:59:32 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 81568

Christopher, thanks for taking the time to write three of the most well thought out posts ever posted on this thread.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (7780)	3/16/2004 6:37:49 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I'll get back to your Federalism issue. Trade is an area of executive power (except approving treaties). All anyone in the Senate can do is talk about the issue, not introduce legislation. If a trade agreement was before the Senate, a Senator could propose changes. Sure, Kerry's proposals may just be campaign promises, and that is why I included the comments from two well known economists (both pro free trade) calling Bush the "worst on trade since Herbert Hoover!" I guess on every issue you could ask: "What legislation did he introduce?" That is a valid question. Kerry has not introduced very much legislation during his career. But as the following article points out, "As Dean pointed out in a debate in South Carolina, Kerry has few if any laws that bear his name. But neither do many other influential senators, because most bills are folded into other legislation and put in final form by committees, whose senior members are usually identified as sponsors. Kerry is a senior member of the foreign relations, finance and commerce committees ..." washingtonpost.com But back to the trade issue: I understand your skepticism and pessimism. It is a sad comment on America today. Since Bush continually says one thing and does another, people have become very jaded and ask the obvious question: why will Kerry be any better? Honestly, I cannot be sure (He cannot be worse!). But several prominent Republicans that I respect (Senators Hagel and McCain) have praised Kerry’s honesty and integrity. If Kerry does what he says on trade, he will be far superior to Bush. I will finish on trade with conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett writing in the National Review: “From the point of view of trade, it (Bush) is the worst administration since Herbert Hoover helped bring on the Great Depression by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930.” nationalreview.com

To: The Philosopher who wrote (7780)	3/16/2004 8:01:41 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Federalism. When I first joined the Republican Party, my main issue was fiscal responsibility. A corollary issue was the size of the Federal Government. Although I understand the importance of government in a variety of areas (like pollution or civil liberties), I felt we must 1) lean against the growth in government and 2) move as much of government as possible to the local area. These are classic Republican principles. I used to think “tax and spend” was the worst policy. I was wrong. “Tax cut and spend” is far worse! Bush is growing the Federal Government substantially (In McCain’s words, Bush is spending like a "drunken sailor"). At the same time, Bush is cutting taxes and allowing the deficit to explode. This is fiscally irresponsible. Taking a step back, when Reagan became President, I believe he tried to adhere to these core Republican principles. He started with a terrible situation: double digit inflation and high unemployment (the unemployment rate reached double digits early in his first term). Reagan started by cutting taxes AND government spending, but when the deficit exploded, Reagan changed course and raised taxes in 1983. Bush has made no effort to change course. Every year he promises to restrain government spending and every year he fails. Bush has made no serious effort to cut government spending and is creating a financial time bomb. The "tax cut and spend" policy is reckless and irresponsible. But what about John Kerry? If you are looking for him to be a champion of smaller government, I think you will be disappointed. However, I do believe he will 1) be more fiscally responsible than Bush (not hard) and 2) have smaller increases in government spending. With regards to legislation, Kerry supported Clinton’s fiscally responsible economic program. For a Republican like me, that at least gives me hope.