Kerry Targets Budget Deficit: New Proposals Echo Clinton

[Freddie Stubbs]

By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A01


Sen. John F. Kerry outlined a broad deficit-reduction policy yesterday, scaling back several campaign promises that he now concedes the country cannot afford if his new budget goals are to be met.

In his second major policy address of the general election campaign, the Massachusetts Democrat harked back to the fiscal and political policies of President Bill Clinton, sacrificing social spending to the goal of reducing the budget deficit by half in five years and eventually eliminating it by raising taxes on the rich and restraining government spending.

Kerry pulled back on promises made during the Democratic primary crunch to immediately make preschool universal and cover the cost of college for students who provide national services, such as volunteering. Both programs would cover fewer people than originally billed. Sarah Bianchi, the campaign's policy director, said Kerry is also cutting in half a proposal to send $50 billion to cash-strapped states. The Democratic candidate has been under relentless attack by the Bush campaign as a big spender.

"Those are hard calls a president has to make," Kerry told students at Georgetown University.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57889-2004Apr7.html

[quinnox]

1. Sounds like Clinton is giving some pointers

Can't hurt to have a master politician like Clinton on your side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Elected twice and balanced the budget

He must have done something right.

[Kanary]

5. yeah, mr DLC freddie

He did something "right"

He balanced his budget on the backs of poor women and children, and sent them out to the streets.

They're still thanking him.

NOT

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. There was no significant increase in homelessness during Clinton's Admin.

I have not seen any more woman and children 'out in the street' than prior to 1993.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Probably Clinton's Treasury Sec. Rubin, who is advising Kerry --

one of the best Secretaries of the Treasury in our history.

[JI7]

8. Kerry talks to Bill Clinton regularly

he advises kerry on many things. but yes, robert rubin is advising kerry also . i'm glad to see that kerry is using clinton and those who worked with clinton as much as he is in his campaign.

[JI7]

9. Clinton helped Kerry win the primary

and will do all he can to make sure kerry wins the general election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. How was Clinton helping Kerry in the primary?

I had read reports that he was working behind the scenes for Clark.

[JI7]

52. those were false rumors

they were mostly conspiracy theories about how clark was brought in to stop dean. but clinton gave advice to all. and kerry took it and it helped him win.

[Kanary]

4. Yeah, and futher shredding of the "safety net", right?

Thanks for the heads up.

I won't be voting.

I can't vote for someone who'll speed up my demise.

You can bet poor folk won't be voting.

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. The safety net is still there for those who truely need it

It is just no longer a 'way of life.'

[Kanary]

25. That's a great GOP "talking point"

Take a look at the cuts just to HUD, and realize just how many more people, elderly and disabled, will be homeless from these cuts.

I doubt that you're very familiar with the whole situation.

Kanary

[Bill Todd]

10. Gee, too bad he trashed Howard instead of listening to him

when he criticized Howard's plan to roll back the middle-class portions of Bush's tax cuts (as well as the upper-income ones) and claimed that he could finance his own programs without doing so.

Simple incompetence, deliberate lies, or 'plausible deniability'? You decide.

- bill

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Either way, that was hardly a deciding factor in the primary

[dsc]

13. So those things are OK if they don't decide the primary

I was ridiculed for saying this in real time. Now it appears that both Dean and I were absolutely right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. He still is not calling for rolling back the middle-class portions of the

tax cut.

[dsc]

15. No he is merely screwing the poor

He is cutting back on plans which benefit the poor so he can keep the middle class tax cut. But, it should be noted, that among the things I pointed out was that the numbers didn't add up. I was ridiculed for that too. Clearly I was 100% right on that or else he wouldn't be cutting back his programs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Just like how Clinton 'screwed the poor?'

The poverty rate actually declined during the Clinton administration. If that is getting screwed, then getting screwed must be a good thing.

[sangh0]

17. Hypocrits exploit the poor for political purposes

They support a politician who was passionately in favor of amending the Consitution to include a Balanced-Budget Amendment, which would have made cuts in social spending PERMANENT, but they will complain about Clinton, who did more for poor people than their candidate ever did.

[dsc]

19. Poor people in vermont

got thosands of dollars back on their tax returns to subsidise housing. Can you please point to where Clinton did that? Working poor in Vermont have government provided health care. Can you please point to where Clinton did that (given my status as uninsured I would really like to see that). I want a citation of the date passed, the program mentioned, and how it works.

[sangh0]

21. Poor people got tax refunds?

The truly poor don't pay taxes. Also, much of that money came from the economy which Clinton's policies helped create.

Working poor in Vermont have government provided health care

Thanks to Clinton and his CHIPS program

I want a citation of the date passed, the program mentioned, and how it works.

Screw what you want. Do your own homework

[dsc]

24. You made a claim, not me

and I live in the United states, yes Ohio is in the United States, and in Vermont I would have insurance, in Ohio I don't. We have the chip program here. We have medicaid here.

And, the Vermont program is like the EIC. Oh and I am poor and I do pay taxes. I paid, that several hundred both this year and last. I am sick and fucking tired of being told I don't pay taxes when I mother fucking do. And, before you ask, yes they are fucking income taxes. I do pay fucking taxes. I do pay fucking taxes. I do pay fucking taxes. Stop giving me that Rush Limbaugh inspired crap that I don't. I do.

On edit I probably shouldn't have cussed but frankly many people in my income range are beyond sick of the media and people like you, telling us we don't pay taxes. We do pay taxes. We pay lots of taxes. We are not this freeloading class people like you make us out to be with the assist of the media.

[sangh0]

29. You are being incoherent

I claimed that Clinton helped the poor. Whatever Dean did, it's not even close. It can't be compared. Clinton lead a nation of 250,000,000+. Dean was Governor of a small state. Apples and oranges

I feel bad that you don't have health insurance, but it's not right for you to use that to deny or misrepresent the facts.

We are not this freeloading class people like you make us out to be with the assist of the media.

And again, go screw yourself. I probably give up more income in a year working for charity to help poor people than you make in a year. That is, if you're truly poor and I have my doubts about that. After all, you make it here on a regular basis which would be very hard for someone experiencing the sort of poverty I'm talking about.

[dsc]

32. I make about 14k a year

and I am glad you give lots of money to the poor. I really am. But you said, and were dead wrong, that I pay no taxes. I do pay taxes. Which was my point. I am not at the poverty level but I am, by any reasonable measure not middle class. As to being on here, I used to make more money than I do now, I bought the computer when I did. Since I live alone, I pay for one, and only one luxury. My cable and internent are from the same company and I get them reasonable. I pay more in income taxes each year, than I pay for cable and internet combined. If my computer dies, then I won't be back on due to inability to buy a new one.

[sangh0]

35. Then it's about equal

How many children do you support? The eligibility for aid guidelines we use would probably eliminate you as a potential client unless you have more than one child that you support. That's how poor our clients are.

Since I live alone, I pay for one, and only one luxury

My cable and internent are from the same company and I get them reasonable.

Our poor clients consider a safe place to sleep a luxury.

[dsc]

37. I never claimed to be the poorest person on earth

but as a working poor person I do get annoyed, and you still didn't correct this, to be told I don't pay taxes. I do pay them. I wish you would fucking acknowledge that.

[sangh0]

44. OK you pay taxes

I'm just sick of hearing how Dems do nothing, or not enough. I work for an organizastion that is now $20 million in the hole because of the cuts Republicans made. EVERY SINGLE DEM voted against the cuts.

Now hundreds of people, almost all of them Dems, who have given up thousands of dollars in income in order to work here have to worry about THEIR jobs. And here on DU, people think they don't do enough.

When you do for me, I'll acknowledge that but first you ought to do more to acknowledge what people are doing for YOU. Giving up thousands of dollars isn't enough. Helping poor people get homes, health care, educations, food, clothes, benefits, etc isn't enough. Nothing is ever enough because pricks like me don't acknowledge that YOU do pay taxes.

Nearly every single person in my organization has a story to tell about how a poor person has cursed them out for not being able to help them. Whenever we can't help, we are given the blame.

[dsc]

46. a couple of things

One, you, not I started the name calling.

Two, you, not I, was the first to claim that a Democratic politicians and his hypocritical supporters, did less for poor people than did Clinton.

In other words, both the tone of this conversation and the fact it became a who did more for the poor are on you, not me.

On edit. I am responsible for my responses. Thus I am responsible for the part they played in the tone. I stand behind the fact you started the tone but I did keep it.

[sangh0]

47. Try again

One, you, not I started the name calling.

Two, you, not I, was the first to claim that a Democratic politicians and his hypocritical supporters, did less for poor people than did Clinton.

Above, you said "No he is merely screwing the poor"

[dsc]

48. In this case Kerry is

sorry but he is cutting programs aimed at the poor that is by any definition screwing them. I didn't say, as you did about Dean, that Kerry never did anything for the poor. Oh and you did call me a name first. In case you forgot it is in the title of one of your posts.

[sangh0]

50. "In this case"

Yes, that's what we hear whenever a poor person curses us. "In this case....." A great excuse for forgetting all about all the other cases.

Through my one organization alone, we help HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of poor people, and it isn't because the Republicans are helping us. But fuck that, because "in this case....."

It's just another attempt to make the perfect the enemy of the good. FOr the fine job you're doing on the left's circular firing squad, you should be making more money.

[dsc]

54. I have to say that if you have this patronizing attitude with your clients

you need a new job. I am sorry I expressed an opinion on a political board. I mean, god forbid I do that. But I really must say, that if you copped the attitude with me in person that you are copping here, I would probably curse you out too. I am not claiming your job is easy, I substitute teach though and would compare dealing with that to your job any day, but it is the job you chose to do. If you find dealing with those people such a chore I would respectively suggest another occupation.

[sangh0]

56. The "it's my opinion" defense

How weak. You expressed an opinion?

Well so did I.

I have to say that if you have this patronizing attitude with your clients

You're not a client. You're just someone who doesn't know how lucky he is. You have TOO MUCH MONEY to be a client of ours.

[dsc]

58. I am not the only one you described in patronizing terms

Frankly I bet if your boss read what you wrote here about your clients he or she would be expressing the very same concerns I am. Note I am not saying I could or would show this to him or her that is not my point. My point is that the attitude you are expressing about them here is very likely coming through at work. In case you are curious as to what I am referring to, look back and see what you wrote.

On edit Here is one example.

Nearly every single person in my organization has a story to tell about how a poor person has cursed them out for not being able to help them. Whenever we can't help, we are given the blame.

That statement drips with patronization. And note it isn't directed at me since as you point out I wouldn't qualify for your help.

[sangh0]

61. Easy for you to say, dsc

It's always easy to criticize. It's always easy to point out how SOMEONE ELSE is not doing enough.

It's not enough that I, and HUNDREDS of other DEMS give up thousands of dollars to help poor people. We also have to have perfect attitudes.

Yes, it's very easy to tell others what THEY need to do.

Frankly I bet if your boss read what you wrote here about your clients he or she would be expressing the very same concerns I am. Note I am not saying I could or would show this to him or her that is not my point

Next time you come to NYC, I can introduce to my boss. He'll tell you his stories about being cursed out. Once again, it's always easy to criticize, but my organization has a world-wide reputation for excellence. More than 90% of our money goes directly to serving our clients (as opposed to overhead expenses or fundraising), our record in helping the poor is unparallelled in the area we work in, and we have a 150+ year record of doing this. WE have helped millions with matters of the utmost importance in their lives, including matters of life and death.

But it's not enough becuase one of our programmers is too patronizing.

[Kanary]

59. Thank you, dsc!

:toast:

I'm one of those vilified by the DLC, and facing the cuts, knowing I may not survive.

It has hurt more than I can express that here, on a "liberal" Dem forum, my concerns just don't matter, for the most part, and are even vilified.

I can't even deal with it here anymore.

So, I appreciate you taking this on, more than you know. Not that it will change *that* mind, but others reading your words may see some light.

with appreciation,

Kanary

[sangh0]

62. A DLCer gave us one million dollars to help the poor

Nader gave us zip

[dsc]

64. thank you

[dsc]

18. He did help but he also hurt

Yes there was a decline in the poverty rate, but there was also a radical switching of college aid away from the poor and toward the middle class, there was welfare reform which was OK in his economy but is a disaster now (the worst thing there is that non citizens were totally cut off even if, unlike Clinton, served their country in the military), and the minimum wage dropped in real terms as well. All of those are a mixed record.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Despite the downturn in the economy, no one is starving, there is no

explosion in the number of homeless. These events were predicted at the time that welfare reform was being considered.

[dsc]

22. Oh really?

Maybe you need to visit Ohio. Our homeless shelters, you know the places where people without homes go, are fuller now than they have been in years. Our soup kitchens, those are the places where people without food go, are fuller now than they have been in years. Cuyahoga county, that is where Cleveland is, have cut literally thousands of people off the welfare rolls. Now call me irresponsible but I see the cutting off of these people and the record numbers at shelters and soup kitchens as being related. But heck maybe it was a mild winter, oh wait what mild winter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Do you have statistics to back this up? Specificlly, are there

more homeless during this recession than during the last one (early 1990's) before welfare reform was enacted?

[dsc]

30. All of the following are at record rates for Ohio

Bankrupcies, forclosures, and evictions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to peg homelessness as being record too. I have read this in my local paper and it only has 2 weeks on line.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. How much of that is a function of welfare reform

and how much of that is a function of companies making poor lending choices (and consumers making poor borrowing choices)? Still, I have yet to hear of anyone starving to death due to inability to afford food. Apperently there is still a safety net in place.

[dsc]

38. food banks.

and I would bet more than a few people froze to death this winter either due to poorly heated homes or being homeless. Those sadly common deaths no longer get press.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Perhaps they got no press

becasue it didn't happen.

[dsc]

41. it did

it always does. Plus many die in fires that are from unsafe heating methods. They do happen.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. But has there been a dramatic increase since welfare reform passed?

[dsc]

45. Honestly I don't know

I am not even sure such stats are kept due to the lack of interest in homeless people's lives and deaths. Presumedly it would take autopsies to fix causes of death to be something other than the broad category natural. But, I do know that the numbers of homeless have gone way up.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Can you even back up your claim that homelessness have gone way up?

Specifically, is is higher now than it was during the last recession that occurred before welfare reform?

[dsc]

51. the paper isn't online

and I don't have a scanner. It has been an on going issue in Cleveland. I read the hard copy versions of this story for months.

[Kanary]

65. the proof is on YOUR side, Freddy boy

Your lovely DLC made sure that there would be NO followup studies.

That's their clever way of promoting the kind of garbage you are now spouting.

So, since you are such a fan of the DLC, I would strongly suggest you push them to do some studies, so we have the real facts.

Of course, they won't. Just like the Bushiviks, they don't want pictures, they don't want proof, they don't want a trail that can be followed.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough, if you've followed the antics of the Bushiviks, to see the pattern.

So, go ahead and prove YOUR contentions.

We'll be watching.

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Here is some proof the poverty level is actually LOWER since welfare

reform was encated.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.html

Notice that the 2002 level is lower the level in 1995, the year that welfare reform was enected. That is even during an economy that is in recession.

[dsc]

67. You do realize that much of what we call welfare doesn't count

toward the poverty rate. Any in kind service provided by the government isn't counted. Thus the loss of food stamps, housing, and utilities isn't counted in this measure.

[sangh0]

68. And it wasn't counted before either

so adding or taking away those services and payments don't affect the poverty rate at all. If the poverty rate went down, and it did, it was because people who were poor were now making more money IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LEVEL OF WELFARE THEY RECEIVED

You're raised a red herring. Again, you are discounting the good that was done, and focusing solely on the things you don't like.

[dsc]

70. No I didn't

If before a family had welfare and the other benefits and they bought what 20k otherwise could they were living at 20k. If now they went out and got a job which pays 18k they actually are 2k worse off. In the first case they were in poverty, now they aren't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. The bottom line is that they are now working as productive members

society. Perhaps they will then transfer that work ethic to their children, thereby breaking the cycle of generation to generation welfare dependancy.

[no name no slogan]

74. One in five US kids is malnourished

that to me says we have a hunger problem in this country.

The social safety net suffered from 12 years of purposeful destruction by the Repubs, and eight years of benign neglect by the Democrats. Sure, "Welfare Reform" got a lot of folks of welfare, but it did not raise them above the poverty level. They got jobs, but still can't afford a place to live, enough food, medical coverage, etc.

The food shelves do play a role in feeding people, true. But the whole reason we have (had) a welfare state is because private charities were not able to take care of the poor's basic needs. The conservatives, in their quest to take us back to the 90s (the 1890s, that is) don't see it that way, and are under the delusion that charities and food shelves can handle the situation.

It's not just about jobs, either. Jobs are good-- and most poor folk have at least one. The problem is that our government subsidized companies that create jobs that pay at below poverty levels. Sure, the occassional handout will get a family through a tough month, but when every month is a tough month, it means we have some serious structural economic issues to address.

We need to encourage companies to not only create jobs, but to create jobs that pay living wages. When people earn living wages, they don't need handouts to make ends meet. They don't use emergency rooms for routine medical problems. They don't need shelters to give them a roof over their head. Living wage jobs not only get people out of poverty, they also relieve the burden on the welfare state.

[sangh0]

23. Welfare reform increased the money spent on the poor

and while he was President, poverty decreased. Yes, the record is not PERFECT, it is mixed but can you name better proof of helping the poor than reducing the poverty rate?

[dsc]

28. actually yes

The poverty rate was reduced by around 1% from 15% to 14% or something like that. I know this isn't static but for a second pretend it is. Then around 1 out of 7 people would have gone from poverty to non poverty. Yes, that is pretty good.

But say instead, Clinton had covered the roughly 1 out of 3 poor people who are uninsured. Then 33% of the poor would have had a defacto increase in income of thousands per year.

I think a very good case could be made that the second thing is better than the first.

[sangh0]

31. So "Clinton didn't help the poor" really means

"Clinton didn't help the poor ENOUGH to help dsc with health insurance"

[dsc]

36. No

You asked for an example of something which would have helped the poor more than Clinton did. I chose one. I could have chosen raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, increasing the EIC, expanding the EIC to working couples, or a host of other things. I chose one I was familiar with and was easy to explain. Frankly, I am lucky in that I don't have any serious illness. But I am literally one accident away from being homeless. I know you don't give a shit but that is OK.

[sangh0]

53. Twisting my words doesn't help, dsc

I did not ask for "an example of something which would have helped the poor more than Clinton did"

I asked "What's better proof that someone helped the poor than reducing the poverty rate?"

[dsc]

55. that is the same thing

No you didn't use Clinton's name but you asked for an example of helping the poor more than his biggest accomplishment. Fine, I stand correct. But I notice that you didn't correct anything else. In point of fact there are a multitude of ways that one could have helped the poor more than the drop of poverty rate did.

[sangh0]

57. More twisting doesn't help, either

you asked for an example of helping the poor more than his biggest accomplishment

I didn't ask for an EXAMPLE of helping the poor. I asked for PROOF of helping the poor.

[dsc]

60. whatever

I am done have your last word. I leave you with this. If Dean had won and I just treated you like you just did me, what would you feel about voting for, giving money to, or working for Dean. Do you think you helped your man today? I let you answer that.

[sangh0]

63. Breaking news

When it comes to who I vote for, I don't give a damn about how you would treat me.

If I did anything to hurt Kerry, it's because someone is foolish enough to base their vote on what I said.

[Kanary]

26. Thanks, dsc, for standing up for the poor

Now that the DLC is in power, it's a very unpopular stand.

I appreciate it.

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Clinton actually DECREASED poverty

Which is a lot more than liberals like Mondale and Dukakis were able accomplish.

[dsc]

39. It wasn't all that much of a decline

and it happened in the best economy in history. In a less good economy, Johnson managed a much better drop. I think even Carter had a small drop for part of his term. Then the economy went bad on him and that was the end of that.

On edit Clinton did many good things, and he surely isn't entirely at fault that more wasn't done. But both the country and our party has made a conscious decision to focus on the middle class and its concerns above those of the poor. Now, it is worse in that Bush isn't even doing much for the middle class and nothing for the poor. But the record was at best a C for him on the poor.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Yet it did decline

and even in 2002 (during a recession) it was lower than it was in the mid 90's when welfare reform was enacted. It would appear that welfare reform did not have a negative effect.

[sangh0]

69. Welfare spending INCREASED under welfare reform

.

[dsc]

71. can you back that up

[sangha]

73. No cites handy, but I can provide an explanation

In addition to other changes, welfare reform involved changing the way the feds funded the various welfare programs in the states. Instead of paying the states for each welfare recipient, the feds sent a block grant to the states and gave them greater discretion over how those funds were spent. Realizing that states would not want to see a source of funding reduced, Congress, as an inducement to get the states to go along with the reform, increased the amt the feds sent to the states, with the funds assumed to be spent on things like child care and job training, services that would increase the likeligood that welfare recipients would move from welfare to work.

The reform bill froze the funding levels for five years. That time period has now past, but Congress has been unable to pass another bill because Bush* and the Repukes have been insisting on onerous work requirements, so instead Congress has passed continuing resolutions that fund the welfare at the previously set levels.