Why should I vote for Kerry?

Here are the issues I feel are the most important, and which I believe our government should address.

1. What exactly is our military budget, who are our military enemies, and how exactly are our tax dollars used to achieve military objectives? I would appreciate an accounting down to the penny. I simply can't believe we need a military the size of all other nations' militaries combined.

2. How will the United States make a complete transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources?

3. What is the nutritional content of the food we eat? How is it different from European food? In addition, what is the safety of our food, and how does US food safety compare to Japanese food safety?

4. Why is our PUBLIC educational system so obviously different between Beverly Hills and Compton?

5. How do we best elevate the poor and lower classes to the status of middle class?

6. How do we best end illegal immigration and population pressure in the United States?

7. How do we force corporations to pay their fair share of taxes?

8. How do we strip corporations of the rights of individual human beings? Equally improbably, but if we can't do that, how can we make humans also immortal and immune from criminal prosecution?

9. How can we ensure that employees of US based companies have the same wages as people within the US, thus eliminating reason to move jobs overseas? Or even just over a border?

That said, how do I go about researching Kerry's positions on these issues? His website? His voting record? His campaign contributions?

I've never felt this strongly about issues, but I want to KNOW.

out the answers to any of your 'how do we' questions.

The only question that we'll be asking is 'which country do we attack next and why is this federal agent putting handcuffs on me for asking any questions'.

We have to take care of putting bush* & co. out of business before we can tackle anything else.

Your questions are interesting, and need answering, of course. But if you don't understand why you need to vote for Kerry, there isn't any answer to your questions.

'which country do we attack next and why is this federal agent putting handcuffs on me for asking any questions'.


Any DUers out there ever do criminal defense? What's happening to our civil rights is crucially motivating to me. What our "leaders" are doing to us and the rest of the world is disgusting.

You might as well STFU about any of the "niceties" -- Kerry is ABB, and another Bush term is unthinkable. So do the right thing. He's no prize (and in fact I personally can't stand him), but he's a might bit better than Bush. We think. Nothing else matters at this point.

And this is about as pro-Kerry as you'll ever see me. In fact, it's uncharacteristically generous of me toward Kerry due to the fact that I've been busy scaring myself to death the past week or so contemplating whether or not the Bush clan will allow any transfer of power at all (or even elections, honest or not). It's by no means a sure thing.

STFU, and vote for our guy, or you're an a$$hole.

I understand where everybody's coming from and I'll probably vote for Kerry anyway. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on Kerry's merits.

We've got the Bushbashers, the Naderheads, tons of gray area inbetween, and there's guys like me who wish we could at least get started on educating ourselves to some limited extent.

So yeah, I'll probably do what you guys want anyway, but it would be at least interesting to see if we can muster a discussion on Kerry's stand on issues.

I'll do it because I want Bush gone, but I want to know something about this new guy. What's his deal?

John Kerry will answer those questions? Certainly, you are right about a second Bush term not answering them but I don't think it follows that if Kerry is elected they will be.

the problems facing this country, decency trumps over the certainty of corruption every time.

This whole thread is really pointless. There's just so much that can be said to try to tell people why we need to defeat bush*. If you think that not voting for Kerry will do it, then tell me how you propose to pull it off. I'm very interested.

nough said.

His version of staying the course vs. Bush's version of staying the course are different.

Which one do YOU want more?


Oh yeah... "nough said"

as bush*? I know he said that he would leave troops in Iraq, but that was because we fucked up the place so bad he said we have an obligation to try to fix it. I doubt the way things are going, that it will be an issue. We'll end up running with our tails between our legs before next January.

Are you trying to say that he said he would 'stay the course' in regard to all of the crap this administration has pulled? Please, spare me that crap if you are.

But go ahead, vote for bush* or someone else. Is that what you plan to do? You have that right. But don't utter a single complaint about what you get if bush* gets back into office.

"But go ahead, vote for bush* or someone else. Is that what you plan to do? You have that right."

Thanks to the Democrat-backed Drug War, and the Democrat-supported RACIST disenfranchisement laws, millions of people don't have that right. But taxation without representation is hunky dory with Kerry.

Would you prefer George W. Bush? If so, be my guest and give him your full support. Otherwise, you have very little choice, unless you enjoy throwing your vote away like those Naderite losers in 2000.

However, it is YOUR choice.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you even begin to imagine the effect of 4 more years of Bush appointments to the Federal court system? 3-4 Bush appointees on the Supreme Court?

Kerry wasn't my 1st, 2nd or third choice for the nomination. Sadly, the Democratic party paid me no attention and selected him anyway. He's it-whether I like it or not. I don't particularly WANT Kerry, but I can't handle 4 more years of Bush, and I don't think America can either.

Four years ago, gay marriage wasn't even an issue on the distant horizon. Today, I'm sorry Kerry doesn't support the issue, but I'm not surprised or disappointed. If he did, Bush and his fellow thugs would CRUCIFY him for that support and we would all lose..

The fact that Kerry supports civil unions is quite sufficient for me.

I'm not an ardent supporter of John Kerry. I am an ardent and never ceasing opponent of George Bush and his disgusting family (and all that they stand for).

If Kerry sent his people to openly back a pro-gay event the RW would be all over it sayin Kerry backs Gays and is anti-marriage/pro-sodomy, etc. He needs to play his cards close to the centrist vest to a certain extent. The repug attack dogs are very powerful, very viscious and very hungry for any kind of opening.

He has tried to stay neutral on that hotbutton issue, while stating he does not believe in and amendment that takes rights away from people he refuses to allow himself to be drug into the obviously politically generated issue created the the pugs openly anti-gay stance.

If nothing else, keep in mind that the RW brought up the issue and has proposed the amentment, never would have happened under Kerry.

Want to know why Kerry should support gay rights?

BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

112 lb flaming queens fight harder than Kerry. Why should I give my money and time to a man who's afraid of his own shadow?

Asking McCain to be VP doesn't go far enough, if you ask me. If he wants to pander to the Republicans so badly, why doesn't he just join their party? Or advocate imprisonment based on race? He supports the Drug War, and anybody who's able to read can figure out that the Drug War is an excuse to imprison African-Americans, period.

Understand? Institutional racism at it's finest, and he supports it fully.

Why in the hell should anybody vote for a man who supports racist policies? Explain that one to me, would you?

"He needs to play his cards close to the centrist vest to a certain extent."

Nonsense. He needs to stand up for what's right and never back down an inch. That will get him far more votes than dodging.

are you vying for the v.p. slot? :hi:

you know what...don't...vote for the other guy if you want to...

posted and mentioned that there were way over 150 new members registered in the past month or so. with what's been going on, i feel as though we've had a concerted invasion by freepers, and i'm sick of it. they keep sucking us in. i'm going to do my darndest not to reply to these, and, respectfully suggest everyone do the same. :thumbsdown:

and I may not know what all Kerry's plans are for the issues you mention.

However, I'm voting for Kerry because he is NOT a fucking moron and war-monger like W is.

Everything else is gravy.

Since there's not likely to be much from Mr. Excitement. (God I hate him.)

Since there's not likely to be much from Mr. Excitement. (God I hate him.)

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

and while all your myriad concerns may not be addressed there, JK is the only alternative to the current (mis)administration

However the fact you even need to ask, shows a frightening lack of awareness on the issues to date. Happy reading :-)

Kerry's plan to make alternative energy production a singular priority should be attractive to you.

I'm voting for him is because all the issues you're worried about will be much worst if Bush gets back in the Whitehouse in November.

Especially, since Bush won't have to worry about running again and will do whatever he wants.

or try some one who is semi rational

I'm voting for Kerry because a slim chance of making things better, beats no chance at all.

If you haven't already checked out Kerry's website, voting record, and campaign contributions, you probably don't really care as much about the issues as you would like to think.

Personally, last time I voted Green, because I voted my conscience, and this time I will also be voting my conscience--my conscience would never let me live with myself if I didn't do everything in my power to dethrone the BFEE.

(On edit: added a phrase for clarification.)

If you don't vote for Kerry, you implicitly vote for Bush.

We already know what Bush intends to do to this country, and the act of not voting for Kerry would make you complicit in that.

Is that what you want to do?

This is a two-party system because the two ruling parties collude to keep it that way.

...we'll go from two party to one party. With Kerry, we've got 4 years to lay some grassroots foundations, we've got time to elect 3rd parties to state and local...

That is the choice; Four years to fix things, or forever in the darkness.

Again, if you do not vote for Kerry you are a traitor to the US Constitution.

You guys are just squabbling over who gets to kneel and service The Corporations. Meanwhile, Rome's on fire. BBC News compared South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah, for Christ's sake. What's Kerry going to do about that? Anything?

Sorry to go on and on about it, but why, exactly, does he support the Drug War? Surely he can look at the black/white ratios in our prison populations and figure out that the "Drug War" is an excuse to imprison minorities. It might not look like that on paper, but in the real world, that's the deal. Freakin' thing wouldn't last two weeks if the cops went after rich white folks with the same zeal that they've gone after poor black ones.

Tell me this - is he going to ramp it up (like Clinton did) in an attempt to appeal to the "swing voters?" It's way past insane already, and if you tell me that the police state Kerry will contribute to will be a kinder police state than the one Bush will contribute to I'll spit at you. Politics may be about compromise, but I draw the line at any politician who engages in a war against his constituency - and that is exactly what the Drug War is.

It's a WAR.

And Kerry wants to fight it. So does Bush. Why vote for either of them?

Oh...wait...I remember why I'm supposed to vote for Bush! Because now YOU'RE scared of having to live in the same police state WE'VE endured for decades. If you think being afraid of it happening sucks, just wait until it does and you're caught up in it! You really do have to worry about having your door kicked in, getting beaten, locked up, raped or murdered, and kept from voting. You're right to fear it. It's terrible.

And it's what Kerry wants to do.

And it's a big but. A Jennifer Lopez class "but".

There isn't sufficient time to change that between now and November. Kerry will win, or Bush will. Period. So the point becomes moot.

I will join you the day after Kerry is confirmed the winner in devoting every ounce of energy towards getting a more Leftist message heard, whether that message is delivered by the Dems or a third party is of little consequence to me. I would like to see the two-party stranglehold ended but whatever works is fine.

George W. Bush.

then you have to vote Kerry. The other guy would never consider your list important, much less ever finish reading it.

Makes voting for Kerry VERY appealing.

1. Kerry will stop using our military in an Imperialistic manner. He is one man. The majority of Americans do not want to see our military downsized, at least not "much." So he will not be single-handedly making your dream come true. On the other hand, he will not be going around killing people for the fuck of it.

2. Kerry's approach to fossil fuel/alternative fuels appears to be pretty much in line with the mainstream Democratic party's approach to tax cuts to encourage alternative fuel production, and less of the Bush approach of simply do everything you can to see Oil companies keep their iron grip on everything. If you actually give a shit about this issue, and are not simply trying to pretend, you've got a lot of work to do. There is lobbying to be done; public awareness to be raised; in short, if you dedicate every single moment of your free time to it, you might make an impact.

3. I'm going to move away from your specific points, and just say that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Fiscal Responsibility. Kerry will not go for the bullshit Bush Doctrine of tax breaks for the super wealthy, and he won't cut spending to good programs, and apply more spending to bad ones. If you liked "faith based" charities and all that other nonsense, you won't enjoy Kerry.

In short, go to his website, and do some reading. There's a lot there. As for my main reason to vote Kerry, its quite obvious:

4. Bush is fucking killing the world, and he won't be happy until he's done that. It must be stopped NOW.

Don't forget to vote for your Democratic Senators and Reps, as well. We need to take power away from the GOP. They are serious motherfuckers.

Perhaps this thread should be called: "Who Are You Going To Vote Against In The Election". And if you frighten easily, than of course you must vote for John Kerry.

And you had better vote for John Kerry and not some socialist, Green Party candidate, Nader, etc., or we'll break your legs and call you a Bushite and right-wing freeper! That ought to work!

Nothing like intimidation. Sure beats discussion and friendly persuasion.

This is exactly what I was hoping to read.

issue list to them. Ask for a specific response. Check out voting records (works for candidates who have a voting record) or in the case of Mr.Bush his administrations proposals to a Republican run Congress, which ought to be somewhat comparable to an actual voting record (without the give and take that happens with votes in Congress, especially with amendment free-for-alls).

Some of your concerns are about federal fiscal policy...specifically how our tax dollars are spent and accountability. Ask the question of those who do the spending. A very legitimate and answerable question.

Takes a little work, but you seem committed. Good luck.

I worked for the Dean campaign for a while. I would have preferred Dean, but Kerry will do in the meantime. Hillary in '08, or '12 if Kerry turns out to be better than I am expecting.

1. Kerry might tell us if he wins. Who are our military enemies? All those that * created for us.

2. It can't. Anything else is seen as unprofitable. This is the big flaw with our system: Doing something only because it's profitable. By the time those companies in power realize there's a problem that will affect them, it'll be far too late.

7. End loopholes. Make them pay their fair share. Reverse laws giving them a free ride while putting more burden onto us. Give incentives for people who do NOT outsource.

8. Your credibility just went down the toilet.

9. Regulations. The things that Reagan and all subsequent presidents fiddled with or eliminated to some level.

That's why!!!!

...of FDR. And given the current Republican stranglehold on Congress he is not likely to resurrect a dynamic liberalism. But neither is he George Bush. And putting a stop to Dubya's radical conservative agenda is enough reason for me to give an enthusiastic vote to John Kerry.

even then, you should do it with your mind clear that he's a truly disgusting & unworthy candidate, that you're only voting for to prevent Bush from winning. No one should vote for this disgraceful piece of shit without understanding that it's a choice forced upon you by the undemocratic unjustness of the corrupt 2-party system.

by floating "McCain for VP" rumors and the like.

I'm trusting him to run a good campaign because the evidence shows that he knows what he's doing.

In other words, has he ever lost an election?

Behind Dean, Graham, Edwards, Clark and Gephardt. Given a choice in the general election between Kerry and McCain, I'd probably vote for McCain. I think Kerry is a consummate politician with a platform based more on focus groups than on personal convictions.

All that said, we have a duty to get Bush out of office. Idealism will have to take a back seat for at least four years. He's the most reckless and imcompetent president in American history.

I'm voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. There aren't many other reasons.

Several aides said that Mr. Kerry is the least interested in polling data of any politician they have known, rarely reviewing drafts of questions as Mr. Clinton did or calling for overnight updates like former Vice President Al Gore. But he is deeply involved in tiny details on policy, and spends hours fiddling with speech drafts. (This is an improvement; before a speech at Georgetown University that helped open his campaign in January 2003, Mr. Kerry was so preoccupied with the speech that he had to trim his fund-raising activities for three days.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/politics/campaign/13TRAI.html?hp

(second page)

He's got my vote (and money) by default, don't press the point with those who don't like the man. He's a party hack...he is only anti-Bush, he stands for next to nothing and will make no steps in the right direction other than a partial roll-back on Bush.

...oh, and then there's that war he voted for...

has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history and did so under great scrutiny and pressure the DC powerstructures and even from members of his party?

Stands for next to nothing? Don't let a little thing called history influence your brilliant conjecture.

You're not just voting for Kerry - you're also voting for his potential Supreme Court nominees.

Currently, the average term served by a justice sitting on the USSC is 17 years. Assuming that the next president gets to name two new justices to the bench, you're effectively voting for 38 years of decision-making. And Democratic presidents' nominees have been consistently liberal when they get to the high court, so your disappointment with them will be mimimal (especially when compared to politicians who have to twist themselves around for re-election..)

A quick look at the USSC roster reveals how close we are to disaster (or a dream):

Liberals
John Paul Stevens (Ford, 1975) - 84 years old. Known to have numerous health issues & a wife begging him to retire. Often considered the most liberal member of the court.

David Souter (Bush I, 1990) - 64 years old. Very few retirement rumors, if any.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton, 1993) - 71 years old. Known to be battling cancer, although it has remissed to some extent. Retirement rumors are moderate in number.

Stephen Breyer (Clinton, 1994) - 65 years old. Few retirement rumors, if any.


Moderates
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan, 1988) - 67 years old. Few retirement rumors, if any.

Sandra Day O'connor (Reagan, 1981) - 74 years old. Retirement rumors abound.


Conservatives
William Rehnquist (Nixon, 1972) - 79 years old. Having served for over 30 years, he is the perfect illustration of the damage a bad court nominee can inflict over a considerable period of time. Retirement rumors abound.

Antonin Scalia (Reagan, 1986) - 68 years old. A liberal's arch-enemy in many aspects, there are a few rumors of retirement once in a while - but forget the idea of him evergiving-up his seat to a Democratic nominee. (Hell.. I'd want Kerry to win just to hear him whine when he becomes a member of the permanent minority!)

Clarence Thomas (Bush I, 1991) - 56 years old. An almost identical voting record when compared side-by-side with Scalia. He's young and healthy.

===========

So there you have it. I'd ask that you play-around with certain retirement scenarios. I could see a situation where four (yes, FOUR) justices leave the court in the next term, which could leave us with a 6-1-2 court or a 2-1-6 court. We could dominate the Supreme Court for the next generation if we play our cards right. The perils and the promise are too great to not vote for John Kerry this time around.

I'm voting (and funding) for him anyway...I have no choice

that's an extremely scary statement... Think about what you just
said. Unfortunately, most people still believe in the "two-party"
system and that by voting for Kerry everything will be peachy
once again.

Oh well...we have no choice in the matter anyway. Go ahead and vote...

It's that (vote for Kerry) or revolution...I'll stick with the corrupt process as long as my life isn't on the line.

I still don't understand why years 1,2 of Clinton nothing progressive happened? - my guess is, that unless you are really rich, nobody really cares in either party at the national level.

They (The Democratic Machine) barely care in bastions like Berkley, Madison, and Ann Arbor. There it's all about realestate law....

We really don't have a choice. It is either, vote for milque-toast (Kerry) and get a slightly better version of Bush's policies or vote for Bush and...well we all know what that means.

Damned if we do damned if we don't.

and if you vote for anyone else, just get used to 4 more years of crap

welcome to DU, Peak_Oil !!!

first, by way of introduction, i consider myself a far left Democrat ... i dislike many of the compromises the democratic party has chosen to make in the name of getting elected ... having said that, i am 100% enthusiastically supporting Kerry ... here's why ...

1. the military: i see an essential difference on this issue between Kerry and bush ... Kerry walked the walk in Vietnam ... bush did not ... I believe his experience has taught Kerry respect for the little people in the military ... bush talks a good game about "supporting the troops and strengthening America to keep us safe" but the reality he supports is very different ... most of the wars we fight require highly specialized and adaptable personnel ... yes, we do need some large scale weapons systems but they are incredibly expensive and are not very effective in the kind of role the military is now playing in Iraq ... what good are sophisticated fighter jets against political insurgencies? i think Kerry's focus will be first on upgrading personnel rather than on corporate, no bid giveaways to bloated, cost overrun weapons systems ...

2. move away from fossil fuels: put very simply, one party believes in the risks of global warming and one party does not ... you figure it out ... bush and his buddies are all from the oil industry ... they view calls for higher mileage standards to be an interruption with the free market ... not only does our dependence on oil create global political instabilities, but it is likely to lead to environmental devastation in the very near future ... one party wants to drill in the ANWR and one does not ... which party is more likely to address this issue?

3. food safety: the U.S. food supply has been one of the safest in the world (chemical additives notwithstanding) for many years ... but two trends are putting our food safety at risk ... one is the WTO and other free trade agreements ... it is becoming increasingly difficult for the U.S. to keep out food imports that may not meet our inspection standards ... the WTO gives other countries the right to consider these safety laws a restraint of trade in violation of the agreement ... the second area of concern is genetically modified foods ... again, one party believes in a minimum standard of at least labelling these foods and one party views such regulations as an unnecessary encumbrance on the free market ... you figure it out ...

4. education: it is well known that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ... well, it's also true that the rich get good educations and the poor often do not ... most communities fund their local publice schools from the property tax ... this leads to the kinds of problems you've observed ... poorer communities cannot possibly provide the same education as richer ones ... one party believes in massive tax reductions for the wealthiest citizens and one party believes that tax cuts should go to the less wealthy ... one party even called for the elimination of the department of education ... one party wants to allow vouchers and all sorts of other gimmicks to allow people to pull their kids out of public schools and have the government and the taxpayers subsidize religious educations ...

5. elevating the poor: for too long, democrats were identified as the "welfare party" ... but this is no longer the case ... democrats have traditionally been the party of high employment ... and republicans have been the party of high UNemployment ... you've already mentioned the disparity available to rich and poor in the area of education ... that's a major part of the problem ... we also need to raise the earning standards to provide a "living wage" ... we've seen corporate CEO salaries go from a multiple of 40 times the average worker to more than 400 times the average worker and yet many full-time workers have to work two or more jobs just to make ends meet ... and who's at home guiding the children while the adults are working? free market capitalism has done nothing but widen the chasm you've identified ... and guess what, what party has traditionally fought for raises in the minimum wage and one party has opposed it ... you figure it out ...

6. illegal immigration and population pressure: sorry, i'm not knowledgeable on this subject ... i will say, however, that i would like to eliminate the tax deduction for children for earners over some level of income ... if anything, i'd like to see a deduction for those without children ... i don't assume this will be a particularly popular proposal ...

7. corporate taxes: i've heard republicans call for the complete elimination of the corporate tax ... they consider it double taxation because distributions of corporate earnings (e.g. dividends) are taxed a second time to the individuals who received them ... many corporations not only don't pay their fair share of taxes, they don't pay any taxes at all ... until we can get big money out of the political process and send all corporate lobbyists to jail for trying to influence the legislative process, we are not going to see changes in the law ... and i'm sorry to say that i don't think democrats have done much better on this issue than the republicans ... our government is for sale to those who can afford the fare and the rest of us be damned ...

8. corporate "personhood": this is really a great question ... i wish i had a great answer ... again, a major part of the problem is big money in the political process ... we really do have the "best democracy money can buy" ... i don't believe that capitalism in the form of large, multi-national corporations can co-exist with democracy ... and if you're looking for significant differences between the two major parties on this issue, good luck ... understand though, that one party wants to give the free market a "free hand", and one party believes in a balance between democratic controls on business and "free" commerce ...

9. job outsourcing: i have called for the following changes to the tax code to address this issue ... first, any company that moves it headquarters outside the U.S. will no longer be allowed to have sales of its stock qualify for lower capital gains taxes ... this would provide a major disincentive for companies to move offshore to evade paying taxes because investors would be strongly discouraged from investing in these companies ... second, the percentage of capital gains available to a company's investors would be pro-rated based on the percentage of their workforce based in the U.S. ... so, if a company decided to outsource 75% of their workforce to foreign workers (leaving 25% in the U.S.), an investor could only receive lower capital gains rates on 25% of their gain from the sale of the company's stock ... again, this would create a strong disincentive to outsource ... all of this would probably be a major violation of the WTO and other pro-corporate trade agreements ... on this issue, I fully support Kucinich's call for the U.S. withdrawal from these abusive trade agreements ... all future agreements should be handled on a bi-lateral basis ...

so, that's my best shot at your questions ... Kerry is not a perfect candidate and the democrats are not a perfect party ... but it's more than easy to see that bush is corrupt and has lead this country to the brink of environmental devastation, military devastation and economic devastation ... Kerry and the democrats are right on many critical issues ... those of us on the far left may have many strong disagreements with them, but this year too much is at stake to do anything that would risk 4 more years of bush ... it's not a case of the lesser of two evils, it's a necessary step on the journey to human dignity and world peace ...

er, DU :hi:

:eyes:

What happened to Peak_oil?

Perhaps it went to do some research?

OR,
better yet, a required (even if nominal) registration-contribution
to the Kerry Campaign or 'anything' Democratic.
That should take care of the problem, wouldn't you say? :shrug:

If he doesn't seem that way to you, don't vote for him. I don't say he's the best candidate, because I don't know who all is going to run third party, but he's the best choice because he will be the only one with a chance to take Bush out. And he is better than Bush. I want to change presidents this time, not third party funding. Talk to me in a few years, and I'll be as reasonable as you like, especially if Kerry doesn't pass muster.

........the big tent and bringing one of these guys home to sit in your living room.



&imgrefurl=http://www.elve.net/panim/en/elepha.htm&h=537&w=400&sz=79&tbnid=UKZ5ytf-z6wJ:&tbnh=128&tbnw=96&start=72&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbest%2Bchoice%26start%3D60%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Criticizing tax breaks for large investors and
corporations, Buffett recently told Berkshire Hathaway
shareholders, "If class warfare is being waged in
America, my class is clearly winning."

It would take 17 Donald Trumps to match the $43 billion
net worth of investor guru Warren Buffett, the world's
second richest man. When it comes to federal taxes,
though, Buffett pays about the same rate as his office
receptionist.

"I pay a somewhat higher rate for my
combination of salary, investment and capital gain
income than our receptionist does," Buffett wrote last
year, "But she pays a far higher portion of her income
in payroll taxes than I do."

To Read entire article

http://www.sitemason.com/newspub/crIfdK?id=15772

What does any of this have to do with voting for Kerry?

http://www.johnkerry.com/

If you spend some time reading there, you'll actually learn about his views on some issues.