Wes Clark 'Saving for America's Future' Plan - Econ speech today

http://www.americansforclark.com/press/release/029/

Clark's 'Saving for America's Future' Plan for the economy will be given today (the second of four major policy speeches in which lark outlines his policies for public service, health care, national security, and the economy).

From the above site:

"I'm releasing a plan to save more than $2 trillion over the next decade to cut the deficit in each and every year," Clark tells supporters at the University of New Hampshire at Manchester. "And to invest in our most important priorities - from health care to education ... from citizen service to the environment. My 'Saving for America's Future' plan starts by bringing the basic value of responsibility back to Washington. We just can't have new spending proposals without saying how we're going to pay for it. It's not that complicated of an idea, but somehow people have forgotten it. When you're in a hole, stop digging."

Since January 2001, the American economy has lost 3.3 million private-sector jobs, including 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. It's been a steady slide, with the economy shedding jobs in 26 of the 32 months since President Bush took office.

Clark continues his call to reverse the failed Bush tax plan by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, those who make more than $200,000 a year.

"I'm as optimistic as I've ever been about our ability," Clark says, "the ability of the hard-working men and women of this country, by the union members and entrepreneurs, by the farmers and the factory workers - to restore our nation's economy, to fire up its engines, and to create jobs and wealth and hope again."

His plan "Saving for America's future" closes tax loopholes for corporations that amount to corporate welfare. Clark also outlines proposals that will change the way business is done in Iraq, working to enlist international support and reinstate competitive bidding practices for contracts.

"I am bullish on America if we make the right decisions for our economy," Clark says."

Per ABC News it seems the plan calls for saving money in four major areas:

1) A tax plan that asks Americans making more than $200,000 to give back the windfall they received under the Bush tax cuts;

2) Cutting Washington spending including defense, where Clark will support money to keep America strong but he will not tolerate billions of dollars of waste or inefficiency just because it has a military label on it.

3) Getting rid of corporate tax loopholes;

4) Changing the distribution of costs to rebuild and do business in Iraq so the U.S. is not the lone funder.

I suspect we will have to wait a few hours for the real details!

:-)

Do you think it will be as good as his plan for the civilian draft?

Clark says:
..."Here's how it would work: Every American age 18 or over will have the opportunity to register for the civilian reserve. If you register, you'll be asked to list your abilities and the types of service that interest you.

By registering, you commit that those skills can be called on at any time - domestically or internationally -- for the next five years. Every five years thereafter, you will be given the opportunity to re-register.

Should something happen during your five-year commitment that demands your skills, you can be offered the opportunity to serve for a period of up to six months." ...
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/

What is wrong with it? It's a voluntary thing anyway. I see it as a way to reward people who likes to help and do volunteer work.

It seems like a nice idea to me. :-)

Someone should make a poll on DU. My impression was that the idea was very well recieved on DU.

It's not a draft. It's entirely voluntary. Don't like it? Don't sign up. No one's forcing you to go help out Californian earthquake victims or hurricane victims in Florida.

Second homerun speech in as many weeks. I think his vision is being laid out very clearly as the campaign advances and I remain impressed with what I see.

General Wesley K. Clark Remarks on the Economy

Added on edit: Economic plan

:toast:

From speech:
"My plan saves money in four major areas:
First, we need to fix the failed Bush tax plan. It's not working, it's not creating jobs, and it's not turning our economy around.
We need tax reform that asks the wealthiest Americans - those making more than $200,000 -- to give up the windfall they received under the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts are weighing down our economy and mortgaging our children's futures.
Second, we need to take a hard look at spending in Washington to see where cuts are possible and find places where we can streamline government and improve efficiency. On defense, I will support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I will never tolerate billions of dollars of waste or inefficiency just because it has a military label on it. We should have the same standards with our domestic spending.
Third, we must get rid of corporate welfare and tax loopholes. These loopholes aren't just a waste of taxpayer's money, they're also bad for business. They encourage businesses to seek handouts instead of looking for better productivity.
Just look at the President's energy bill. It's a bill written by -- and for - special interests, like America's largest energy companies. It's a bill that's more pork than policy. It's a bill that represents the worst political impulse.
Finally, we need to fix the way we do business in Iraq. Bush has taken us to an elective war and has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. Even worse, Mr. Bush has failed to enlist other nations to share the financial burden. And he's spent this money by giving contracts out to his friends, without using a basic competitive bidding process.

"We will streamline the government and work more efficiently. Let me be clear, I support every dime we need to keep America strong, but a military label doesn't justify waste or inefficiency -
Wes Clark

SOUNDS LIKE A CUT IN THE MILITARY BUDGET IS CLEARLY IN THE CARDS

"IT'S THE ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A
GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

SOUNDS LIKE A CUT IN THE MILITARY BUDGET IS CLEARLY IN THE CARDS

I agree.

That's a terrific sig picture. But what the hell is Bush wearing? Is that one of Laura's nighties?

I don't think it's Laura's nightie -- think it was at some meeting in Asia. But he sure likes to play dress up -- flightsuits, ancient oriental garb, Laura's nightie :)

too much like Arnold:

..."Second, we need to take a hard look at spending in Washington (Sacramento) to see where cuts are possible and
find places where we can streamline government and improve efficiency." ...

I think only inexperienced candidates say stuff like that but I could be wrong.

BUT to give credit when due . Kudos to him for this: :party:

..."Said retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a Democratic presidential candidate, "Secretary Rumsfeld is only now acknowledging what we've known for some time -- that this administration has no plan for Iraq and no long-term strategy for fighting terrorism." ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3217-2003Oct22_2.html

Unlike Arnold, Clark gives a step by step breakdown of what he'll do to reduce spending, streamline the government, and improve efficiency.

He indicates specific government agencies to scrap, and gives details of how to create a commission to force congress's hand on closing corporate loopholes.

Do some people remind you of someone else so much that you are somewhat influenced by that association?

I rely a lot on gut reactions. Clark reminds me of a baptist minister I used to know, who was a dear, sincere man, but was very misguided about his own ability to solve other people's problems. They share a lot of the same characteristics ... public speaking, attractive, lobbyist (religion having it's own political structures).

I don't doubt that Clark wants good things for our country. I just don't think he can get us there.

My instincts tell me there are men who are better qualified in the running.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject for awhile.

I respect your right to your opinion. If you wish to base it entirely on intuition and how various candidates resemble people in your life, that is your perogative, even if I don't agree with it. And I will defend your right to make up your own mind.

All that I ask is that you refrain from "guilt by association" smears like the one you tried last night with the Queen of England, and right now with Arnold.

Guilt by associations smears insult the intelligence of DU'ers, and do not speak well of the Stop Clark Brigade.

Best of luck to whoever you settle on as your candidate. All 9 (10) of them are good replacements for Bush. May the best candidate win, whether it is Clark or not. We want our best up against Bush, and if the best is not Clark, then I'll take that person. (But personally, I think it's Clark :))

Who knows, if you give him an opportunity and adopt a wait and see attitude, perhaps he'll win you over. :)

Edit to add: You'll notice I try to stay out of threads bashing other candidates. I hope you'll start refraining from starting threads bashing Clark with guilt by association smears or saying he looks like someone in your life. I respect your choice of your candidate, please respect mine. In yesterday's smear thread, you even mentioned you weren't certain why you started it after people started debunking it. Legitimate arguments and debates are one thing. Deliberate smears based on fuzzy logic are another.

I am unrepentent about my past posts. I keep away from personal bash threads too, but I don't think that's what I've done. I'm only voicing concerns from my perspective.

I've asked some questions and have gotten some good answers and some pathetic ones .. that's the way it goes. ...Like I said, I am moving on from this debate, but I don't need to be shamed for my actions.

I'm not trying to shame you for your past posts. I'd just like you to think it through a bit before you start an Clark smear thread in the future. If it's a legitimate disagreement, I believe you have every right to be heard. But if it's "guilt by association," I don't believe that's worthy of you. (The Queen of England of all people :eyes:)