# Convince me to vote for Kerry **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416 "2004-06-09T05:24:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/101 "2004-06-11T21:40:33Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Oh, come now. I’m willing to believe that Kerry wants to cut those taxes because he honestly thinks it will be a good thing to do. But you can’t seriously believe that doing so will not garner votes. Raising taxes on the wealthy has been a political mainstay of the democratic party for a century at least. Yeah, it has, and look who’s president now. You’d _think_ that the common worker would realize that most of those republican tax breaks aren’t going to him, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe it’s just people’s natural inclination to _wish_ that they were wealthier than they really are, but targeting tax breaks toward the lower and middle classes doesn’t really seem to be politically beneficial. > [@](#): > > Oh, that’s ok, I believe that the fuiel efficiency rules work this way. I just was not sure what you meant by “force manufacturers…”. I understand your point now, I think. Oh, c’mon. I didn’t say “force manufacturers”, I said “IN EFFECT, force them…” It costs money to design more efficient vehicles; horsepower gains are more easily accomplished through large-displacement, gas-guzzling engines. It’s _difficult_ to make an engine more efficient. So if we give them a way to get around doing so, they are naturally going to do it that way. Do you really think we would have ever gotten from the 15mpg, smog-belching engines of the 1950s, to the much more efficient, cleaner engines of today without regulations? Think about it - if you’re the head of an auto manufacturing company, are you going to deliberately do something that will cost you _more_ money, and net you _less_ profit? No, you are IN EFFECT, forced (by the principle of what makes good business sense) to do it. In effect, not literally. Make sense now? > [@](#): > > Yes. I knew about that loophole. The characterization of “forcing manufacturers” threw me off. Except I didn’t say that. You really need to stop being so literal all the time. > [@](#): > > I agree. Of course, I think the appropriate solution for this is to remove the tax breaks intended to promote one behavior over another. They will inevitably lead to behaviors which we do not intend. And just for fun, they will inevitably lag behind the sorts of behavior we do intend. Or fix the loopholes. > [@](#): > > Well, one can have any number of opinions about which alternative energy tree to bark up. On could even have the opinion that the impending world energy crisis is far enough away that most of our efforts should be spent on energy efficiency while a more modest investment in many different alternative forms of fuel is made. One could, but I don’t. I don’t think our dependence on foreign oil is doing us any good. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/102 "2004-06-11T22:10:11Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You’d _think_ that the common worker would realize that most of those republican tax breaks aren’t going to him, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe it’s just people’s natural inclination to _wish_ that they were wealthier than they really are, but targeting tax breaks toward the lower and middle classes doesn’t really seem to be politically beneficial. Oh, I thought you meant that proposing tax increases on the wealthy “isn’t going to get Kerry any more votes” in the sense that nobody would vote for it. If you mean that Republicans seem to have more success selling tax cuts for anyone, I agree. > [@](#): > > Oh, c’mon. I didn’t say “force manufacturers”, I said “IN EFFECT, force them…” I understand. I was not trying to mischaracterize your post. It simply threw me is all. I don’t generally think of environmental rules as rules which force companies to harm the environment. So, I did not think of the fuel efficency standards. I understood entirely what you meant by “effectively force”. > [@](#): > > Do you really think we would have ever gotten from the 15mpg, smog-belching engines of the 1950s, to the much more efficient, cleaner engines of today without regulations? Actually yes. The story of more efficient engines is more one of capitalism than regulation. The Japanese were able to sell more cars in the 70s partially because they were more fuel efficient. The trend for gasoline to be more and more expensive has driven, IMHO, the drive for more efficient cars. Notice, for instance, that even what we call gas guzzlers today are nothing compared to cars which were very common in the 60s. Notice, also, that Kerry is able to call hybrid cars “the vehicles [consumers] want”. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/103 "2004-06-12T01:30:21Z")
Shodan, The smaller government issue: spending more federal dollars on education is not per se controlling it. It is funding it. A bit of a difference. Anyway, I’d only make the case that Kerry is for less Federal control compared to Bush. If Cardinal really want a small government candidate then neither major party offers it to him. > [@](#): > > Kerry wants to increase taxes, increase spending, increase the role of the federal government in health care, education, etc., etc., **and** cut the deficit in half. Uh huh As opposed to the fiscal conservatism of spending much more than you take in and building up record deficits? I agree with erl. Investing in education is the only way this country will continue to prosper in the world economy. That is how to grow the economy in today’s world. Not by Bush’s profilgate spending borrowed from the future. The war issue: No, there is no quick fix to undo what Bush has wrought. It will take decades, billions of dollars, thousands of lives. But I believe that he will limit the harm compared to Bush. Yes, Kerrry made a mistake: he believed the President wouldn’t lie or have such an incompentent administration that things that were assessed as probably true by others were presented as absolute truths that needed to be urgently acted upon. Of course many of us failed to catch on so quickly that this President was quite that bad … even those of us who never liked him. (Even I believed Bush and company when they claimed to have incontrovertable evidence of WMD; I just advocated for giving the UN time to do its thing, that while the inspectors were in place the threat was minimal and the cost of acting unilaterally was high, whereas waiting for the UN to come on board for miltary action had tremendous benefits.) As to getting international involvement in Iraq, yes I believe that Kerry will succeed better than Bush. World leaders hate Bush and his unilateralism. They want to see it punished and to see that the US has learned a lesson. A new President who decries unilateralism and believes in the US as a leading member of a community of nations, not the imperial maaster that you must either follow or oppose, will be more likely to get some support. Energy issues are being well discussed without my input. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/104 "2004-06-12T01:56:59Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > […]spending more federal dollars on education is not per se controlling it. It is funding it. A bit of a difference. Anyway, I’d only make the case that Kerry is for less Federal control compared to Bush. I agree with your distinction, but I do not understand how it applies the way you say. When I read through Kerry’s tax stuff, I think he says that he wants to fully fund Bush’s no child left behind. That is, he wants to keep the control and add the funding. I easily could have missed something. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/105 "2004-06-12T02:40:29Z")
After much reading and learning, I cannot vote for Kerry. Why? Our country needs a defense when attacked, not appeasement which never works. Not to mention calling in the impotent U.N. (sorry Reeder) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/106 "2004-06-12T03:05:41Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > After much reading and learning, I cannot vote for Kerry. > > Why? > Our country needs a defense when attacked, not appeasement which never works. Okay. I agree. Can you show me where you read and learned that Kerry is for appeasement? Particularly where he has called for appeasement of anyone who has attacked us? > [@](#): > > Not to mention calling in the impotent U.N. > (sorry Reeder) So we shouldn’t be attempting to secure real multinational support and participation? Would you oppose any politician seeking cooperation with the UN? Would you oppose it if it were actually happening right now? ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/107 "2004-06-12T03:37:59Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Do you really think we would have ever gotten from the 15mpg, smog-belching engines of the 1950s, to the much more efficient, cleaner engines of today without regulations? . I think that, smog not withstanding, 15MPG would be an improvement over some of the new SUVs. The 2003 Lincoln Navigator averages a mere 12.8MPG/12.2MPG, and that’s when it’s _new_. [Expert Car Reviews | Consumer Guide Auto | consumerguide.com](http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/23092) The regulations we have are not efficient enough if a vehicle can leave the show room getting less than 13 miles to the gallon. My car is 10 years old and gets twice that for mileage- of course it’s small, and not an SUV. I wonder which puts out more smog, though… Clean engines are great, but not really reaching their potential application when they’re being weighed down by a couple thousand extra pounds so the owner can look cool, feel safe (but only if they don’t know most rollovers accidents involve SUVs) and occasionally move a couch. Business has no conscience, and neither do presidents, so I don’t see this being solved easily. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/108 "2004-06-12T03:56:12Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Okay. I agree. Can you show me where you read and learned that Kerry is for appeasement? > > ? When I heard he was a Democrat. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/109 "2004-06-12T06:53:33Z")
“Vote Republican – It’s Easier Than Thinking!” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/110 "2004-06-12T07:48:26Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Actually yes. The story of more efficient engines is more one of capitalism than regulation. The Japanese were able to sell more cars in the 70s partially because they were more fuel efficient. The trend for gasoline to be more and more expensive has driven, IMHO, the drive for more efficient cars. Notice, for instance, that even what we call gas guzzlers today are nothing compared to cars which were very common in the 60s. Notice, also, that Kerry is able to call hybrid cars “the vehicles [consumers] want”. No, that’s not true at all. Congress first required fuel-efficiency standards in 1975, and the automakers fought them every step of the way. There was nothing voluntary about it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/111 "2004-06-12T17:46:33Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > When I heard he was a Democrat. 🙂 Okay, I realize you used the smiley, which probably means you are joking, but let’s follow this through anyway, since it was the bulk of your post. Do you believe that Democrats are for appeasement? If so, where did you read or learn this? If it was entirely a joke, does that mean that you haven’t concluded that you cannot vote for Kerry? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/112 "2004-06-12T17:53:20Z")
I’m more interested in what “appeasement” is supposed to indicate, **vanilla**. Neither party has a track record of lying down to die as far as history is concerned, so I’m assuming you mean something else. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/113 "2004-06-12T18:16:30Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > No, that’s not true at all. Congress first required fuel-efficiency standards in 1975, and the automakers fought them every step of the way. There was nothing voluntary about it. How many of those regulations do you think account for the willingness of the public to buy fuel efficient cars? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/114 "2004-06-13T01:27:06Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > How many of those regulations do you think account for the willingness of the public to buy fuel efficient cars? **pervert** , I’m not sure what this sentence means. However, if the public would only buy fuel efficient cars, there would, of course, be no need for regulations. You might be indirectly argue that the market must drive this matter; I’m not sure. However, if that is the case, if you had the choice of two cars that were exactly the same in all respects, save one got 20 miles per gallon and the other got 35, which would you choose? Likewise, say cars worked, for some reason, by a process that resulted in oil spewing out a pipe in the back, so that you had to fill up on oil on a weekly basis, and the oil waste ran off into streams and such. Wouldn’t you think it in the public interest to regulate for less oil wasting and environment polluting vehicles? My point is that sometimes we have to alter the choices available in the market by forceably altering aspects for the greater good. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/115 "2004-06-13T03:25:20Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I (and most fiscal conservative types) think that the role of government rightfully includes providing a strong defense of our country. It does not include massive social programs that currently dwarf the military budget. This isn’t exactly breaking news. Maybe I’m misreading this [budget data from whitehouse.gov](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html), but it looks to me like the social programs do not “dwarf the military budget.” (Figures in billions) **2004 Enacted budget figures:** Homeland Security (non-Defense)…28 Department of Defense…375 Other Operations of Government…384 Then we add in the supplementals: Homeland Security…6 Defense and other War on Terror…80 Non-Defense, Non-Homeland…5 Total budget is 874 billion dollars, of which 455 billion is Defense. I’m leaving out Homeland Security, but including “Other War on Terror.” That’s 52% of the budget devoted to something other than social programs. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/116 "2004-06-13T04:01:11Z")
**Brainiac4** : You may be missing the subtleties of **Debaser’s** post. He indicates: > [@](#): > > _the role of government rightfully includes providing a strong defense of our country._ If I may explain, here **Debaser** demands massive cuts in military spending, until it corresponds only to that needed strictly for the “_defense of our country_.” No foreign, offensive or invasive actions by US forces are budgeted for. It’s a brave policy of fiscal rectitude in the finest conservative tradition. Remember that words mean something. ‘Defense’ means it. I for one, applaud this return to principle by a conservative voice. To round up: **Debaser** is correct. The cost of social programs does currently dwarf the defense requirements of the United States. It is an error of reasoning to equate current military expenditure with that expediture necessary for defense of the US: Deduct non-defensive expenditure as **Debaser** suggests, before comparing the costs of the two: Social Programs vs Defense Spending. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/117 "2004-06-13T05:02:16Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > To round up: **Debaser** is correct. The cost of social programs does currently dwarf the defense requirements of the United States. But he didn’t say social programs dwarf the _defense_ budget, or that they would dwarf his _preferred_ military budget, he said they “currently dwarf the military budget”. I think the logical leap you’re taking is unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/118 "2004-06-13T07:07:01Z")
It’s what he _meant to_ say. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/119 "2004-06-13T07:11:52Z")
Well, count me whooshed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416/120 "2004-06-13T08:08:31Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > After much reading and learning, I cannot vote for Kerry. > > Why? > Our country needs a defense when attacked, not appeasement which never works. > Not to mention calling in the impotent U.N. > (sorry Reeder) So you go for the idiot chickenhawks over the decorated veteran. Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-vote-for-kerry/249416.md?page=7)