I have a quick political question. If Kerry wins, but the GOP retains control of the Senate and/or Congress, does that mean most of what Kerry promises is unlikely? I mean are we going to see the Health plan he envisions ever come out of Congress? Or what about his tax plan? I'm not familiar with how this exactly would work. I realize Bush had the benefit of a GOP congress, so I can see how he got things pushed through. Basically, with a GOP congress, are the most liberal of his ideas going to the wayside so he can push through other parts of his agenda that he can convince the GOP to vote for?
so what happens if Kerry wins. Does Mass. republican governor Mitt Romney name his Senate replacement? Is there a special election for that spot in 2006? He should have let another Dem run for his spot.
Let me restate. With W, we will see a larger deficit year by year. With Kerry, we will see a smaller deficit year by year. Give Kerry and a Republican Congress 8 years, we will likely see another balanced budget. Back to the original question, I think in general that Kerry will have an exceptional working relationship with the Congress. There will not be any getting-to-know-ya period.
Again it's your opinion on what Kerry will do (or as the adds say there is what Kerry says and what Kerry will do). Seems hard for me to believe that kerry will get a new health care platform that will cost $653B over 10 years, increase tax credits (college, children, etc), save the enviroment, win the war on terror, make our country safer, give tax credits to all companies who don't outsource, possibly take on Iran (like he said in the debate), not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200k and cut the deficit in half in 4 years. It doesn't add up.
And if you believe the ads, then you will likely believe any distortion the GOP throws out at you. As I have mentioned before, with a GOP controlled Congress, even on the off chance that the Dems take back the Senate this year, Kerry will likely not be able to push through even half of his domestic policy, reducing the GOP touted "costs" dramatically. If all he does this first term is restore some fiscal sanity by rolling back the tax cuts to the wealthy, then I will call it a successful first term. What doesn't add up is the "fuzzy math" of this administration.
Andy- His health care plan has aprice tage of $653B over 10 years. That in itself is more than the extra taxes being rolled back on people making over $200k. And as John Edwards recently admitted their #1 priority is cutting the deficit so they will make sacrifices to make it happen (which means the health care plan they are promoting is a pipe dream). So this almighty health care plan may sound good to some, but will come with a heavy price tag and based upon what Edwards said could be scaled back if the money is not there to pay for it. It's so very nice of Edwards and kerry to talk about what we don't have: More troops, better health care, better homeland security, but you know what the bottom line questions are finally emerging: How will you pay for it? Bottom line just increasing the taxes on the rich to their pre-2002 levels won't pay for most of what they are discussing. Guess it's time to figure out what they need to do on plan B: 1. Tax increases 2. Admitting they can't afford to do what thye've been touting 3. Run the deficit up 4. Cut other programs My bet is they now come out and start saying we'll cut "XYZ", but we'll see.
If you believe the numbers being thrown out by the GOP, I suppose, but healthcare coverage for the country is probably a non-starter with the GOP controlled House. More than likely, the most that could possibly happen is some sort of coverage for uninsured kids, which will have a FAR smaller price tag than you are throwing around here. At least SOMEONE in DC is saying that their plans will be scaled back if we can't pay for it. With the current administration, they only seem to want to spend, not caring much about the debt they are piling on my son's shoulders. By actually paying as we go instead of racking up more debt. Just going back to pre-2002 for the rich will add some DESPERATELY needed funds to the treasury, reducing the deficit virtually overnight even if NONE of their domestic priorities are funded (which would seem pretty likely given that the GOP will almost certainly control at least one house of Congress). I would rather have a tax and spend Democrat than a borrow and spend Republican.
The $653B is from an indepedent 3rd party. Also here is kerry's interview where he said if tehy can't afford this health care plan they won't have it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134978,00.html But isn't it interesting that kerry can criticize Bush for not having some things in place (health plan, more homeland security) during the debate but then immediately after his running mate is saying if we can't afford them we won't have them either. It would be lovely to hear Kerry say "Sorry troops we can't afford new bullets cause I won't run up the deficit and I won't raise taxes on the middle class". Now I guess all his campaign promises should come with an asterick (*if we can afford it).
Personally, I think that it is the responsible thing to say that if we can't afford it, then we won't do it. It sure beats claiming that the costs will be far lower than estimated to get a bill passed (like the prescription drug benefit the GOP passed). He has already made it clear that the troops will get what they need to be successful in Iraq, if anything needs to be cut, it will be domestic plans not related to homeland security. And I guess that Bush's promises should come with the asterisk labeled (* We will just run up even MORE debt so that our rich contributors can keep their tax cut).
What right does a Republican (assuming that you are one) has to raise this issue after the last four years fiscal irresponsibility by your party and your president. A better Republican response would be "hey, federal government run the printing presses; what the heck!!!"
