Well, I agree with Sparky and Anirban, and would just like to add my $.02:
Remember that the costs of this war, the historic defecit, and the abuse of government spending will not be paid for by our parents, but by OUR generation (I am in the same demographic as you). That the Bush tax cuts do more to harm us than to hurt us, in the long run. The first tax cut may have stimulated the economy, but continuing such umbrella tax cuts is irresponsible and downright dangerous. Our parents will make the social security and medicare boat, but if things continue the way they have in Washington, I have great doubts that we will. Bush has already talked of privatizing these institutions; apparently he'd rather us pay to balance the budget than restrict spending by Washington itself.
Kerry, an effective diplomat, was able and willing to step across the aisle and work with fellow Sen. John McCain to write a bill calling for fiscal responsibility in Washington, specifically an end to "government welfare" as it's been called, and a new "pay-as-you-go" policy. He will give tax cuts to those who need them most.
Realize that $400 will not even come close to covering the rising costs of medicine and living, especially if we no longer have any significant social security or medicare to speak of.
Kerry is for war when it is necessary to protect our homeland, but will not fabricate evidence in a war where only the oil companies and the government profit. He knew we needed to get rid of Saddam eventually, but wanted to take a more diplomatic approach; he also knew that if war wasn't immediately justifiable, we ought to work first to keep the humanitarian situation stable there. Bush seems to have very little compassion for the citizens of Iraq, and the oil money that was supposed to be used to rebuild the country has for the most part stayed in Halliburton's pocket.
Kerry has a timeline for withdrawal: He knows we need to bring home the vast majority of our troops at some point, but that we need to leave an Iraq who can take care of itself. That means training a police force and making an honest effort at rebuilding the country. Bush has no plan to speak of; Kerry has a timeline, and the international respect and know-how to make it happen. This is the compassionate thing to do, for both the people of Iraq, and our own citizens and soldiers..
The GOP/media has characterized Kerry as a flip-flop, but there is little evidence to support these claims. The main tagline is that he voted for the war and against funding it. This is way too simple, and not true. He voted to authorize the war if proved absolutely necessary in defense of our homeland. This was the right vote. He did vote to fund our troops, just not for the specific Republican bill that happened to pass through a Republican-controlled house. He voted against this bill because it was a bad bill: loads of money set aside for special interests to be spent at Donald Rumsfeld's discretion, partisan excess, and too little money spent actually arming our soldiers. If all the $87 billion was spent honestly on the war effort, why would soldiers families have to save up simply to supply them with body armor? This was the right vote. The Kerry campaign's only fault is that they will not attack this issue, save a weak mumbling of "I voted for it before I voted against it." They have a passive approach, hoping to let all the labelling and slander just blow over, and it may unfortunately cost Kerry the election.
Hope that helps! I applaud you for making an honest effort to consider the "other side." I come from a family who have voted on both sides throughout the years, and I have learned to look at the candidate before the party...Looks like you have the same approach, and it sure is refreshing to see! This time around, I simply feel that Kerry is the better choice by far.
Please let us know if you have any questions about anything, and keep us informed about which way you're leaning!