Kerry/Edwards 2004

“A Republican and a Democrat are walking down the street when they see a homeless person. The Republican walks up to the homeless person, gives him a business card, and says, "Come by tomorrow and I'll give you a job." Then he reaches into his pocket, pulls out a $20 and gives it to the homeless person. The Democrat sees this and thinks there must be some way he can help too. As they continue walking they see another homeless person. This time the Democrat walks up to him, gives him directions to the welfare office, then reaches into the Republicans pocket, pulls out a $20 and hands it to the guy.

The moral: The Democrat should have grabbed $40. What the hells this guy going to do with $20?”

“Rev Truth, you seem to be an incredibly well informed guy. Could you please explain something for our edification (or maybe violin can help us out with a thorough understanding of economics). Maybe someone can enlighten me on the specifics of the Kerry economic plan. Specifically, Kerry has said, many times, that Bush is responsible for sending jobs overseas and that this has got to stop. This is taken from the Kerry/Edwards site:

“It's time to bring those opportunities back. John Kerry and John Edwards know that we're stronger when we create good-paying jobs here, not ship them overseas.”

Kerry has stated (and here’s where I’m a little fuzzy in my understanding) that his plan is to provide tax incentives for business to hire US workers. From the Kerry/Edwards site:

“As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas.”

Now I understand that business saves money by outsourcing to other countries because of all the government regulations we have in this country. I understand that by outsourcing business saves because of Withholding Regulations, by not having to pay Social Security, Unemployment, and Workers Comp. I understand that foreign labor is often cheaper because foreign labor markets are not held to the strict regulations for working conditions and the environment that we are in this country.

So what tax incentives for business can Kerry provide to get US firms to hire more US workers? Is he saying that government can provide enough tax incentives to cover the savings businesses get from outsourcing overseas? Is he saying that the government will pick up the cost of those worker’s salaries? Inquiring minds want to know.”

“For one, Kerry plans on relieving some of the burden of healthcare costs. One way of doing this is having the government pick up all claims of catosptophic illnesses. This along with other changes that I can't reel off the top of my head will decrease the cost of healthcare.”

“I have heard that Kerry is going to appoint Arclite to a cabinet level position. "We need a good architect for my economic plan".
-J. Kerry”

“BB, government is going to pick up all claims for catostrophic illnesses with what? I guess that tax money that will pay for that? And where will that money come from?”

“The money will come from the enormous fines Halliburton will have to pay when they are found guilty of making deals with Iran while Iran was under US sanctions.”

“Halliburton again huh? I think you're record's stuck.”

“You do realize that there are factors besides labor costs and regulatory environment that businesses look at when making siting decisions, don't you arc? I never figured you to be a completely uninformed person. Things like access to a well educated, motivated work force, public infrastructure, well funded basic research at public universities… to name a few.”

“Who the hack is Rev Ruth T. Wickerd?”

“America's Eagle is brought down to earth with a bump
By Peter Spiegel
Published: August 6 2004 04:00 | Last updated: August 6 2004 04:00

It started as one of the dozens of military exercises the Pentagon conducts with friendly governments each year - operations that are as much about bilateral diplomacy as about testing military capabilities.


But the exercise carried out in February, involving mock combat between the US and Indian air forces over the skies of Madhya Pradesh in central India, has taken on a life of its own. The reason? The US lost.

Not only did the US aircraft lose, but they lost repeatedly. According to one member of Congress briefed on the exercise, the US air force's top fighter, the F-15 Eagle, was defeated more than 90 per cent of the time in simulated dogfights with Indian pilots.

As a result, reports on the exercise have not only reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill but have travelled around the world to military procurement agencies in Singapore and South Korea. As details have gradually leaked out, the exercise has become one of the prime topics of gossip at global air shows and arms fairs. It has also opened a rare window on to the overlapping loyalties and increasingly cut-throat competition that mark military procurement in an age of shrinking defence budgets.

The exercise, known as Cope India, was conceived almost two years ago as part of thawing relations between New Delhi and Washington. Some Pentagon officials saw improved diplomatic ties with democratic India as a way to balance the growing strength of communist China. It was the first combat training exercise between the two air forces in more than 40 years.

But Pentagon planners also had an important military goal: US air force pilots had never had the chance to go up against the Su-30 Flanker, the latest Russian-built fighter designed by Sukhoi, which India began acquiring in 1997.

Many of the details of Cope India remain classified. Accounts conflict: some say the F-15s lacked the US air force's most sophisticated radar; others that the Indians used special helmet-mounted targeting systems unavailable to US pilots; and others that the Americans were outnumbered at least two to one.

Whatever the reasons, the US Air Force might normally be expected to keep such a defeat under wraps. But in recent weeks, senior officers have begun leaking information about the exercise, freely admitting their technical inferiority. "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were," says General Hal Hornburg, head of the US's air combat command.

The reason for the sudden candour has little to do with the F-15, and much more to do with another high-performance aircraft: the $72bn F/A-22 Raptor, a new stealthy combat jet that the US Air Force is desperate to save from Congressional and Pentagon budget-cutters. The craft has come under fire from those who say the

US no longer needs a fighter originally designed to fight the next generation of Soviet MiGs. So senior officers have decided that the risks of revealing the inadequacies of the F-15 are outweighed by the opportunity to convince the government to keep buying the higher-priced fighter.

"Something like Cope India, when we find that some of our advantages aren't as great as we thought they might be, leads me to remind people that we need to modernise our air-to-air capability," says Gen Hornburg.

Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F/A-22, has been more than happy to play along. In recent briefings, senior executives have made thinly veiled references to Cope India.

"The bottom line is, the US no longer has a technological combat advantage, based on aircraft versus aircraft," says Ralph Heath, the Lockheed executive overseeing F/A-22.

It would seem only natural that the F/A-22's largest subcontractor, Boeing, would play along too - except for one problem: Boeing makes the F-15. The company recently won a competition to produce F-15s for South Korea and is engaged in a heated contest to build 20 for the Singapore air force. "We were concerned," says George Muellner, head of Boeing's air force business.

In an effort to save the F-15 from the Pentagon's self-inflicted wounds, General John Jumper, the air force chief of staff, recently briefed Singaporean officials on the Indian exercise. Singapore, which is also looking at the Eurofighter and the French Rafale, has reason to be worried: China has bought the Su-30, as have Malaysia and Indonesia.

Caught in between is Sukhoi itself, which does not seem to know what to make of the mixed American messages. "We feel part of a game," protests Alexander Klementiev, Sukhoi's deputy director general. "But we are not participants in that game."”

“It seems to me that long periods of peace are necessary to build up the funds to develop better weapons technology. Either that, or taxes should go through the roof.

Democrats and Republicans aren't going to make it happen.”

“Ahhhhh, here we are back in the 1950s.”

“Note to NoProb: Halliburton has already settled for 7.5 million with the SEC. There is a class-action suit brought about by Halliburton stock holders because of "systemic" fraudulent accounting practices. This doesn't bother you that the VP is involved in this mess?”

“This just in.....John and John are scheduled to travel through the hometown of yours truly tonight. Yes, if you want to see the dynamic duo tonight, Kerry's train will be at the Amtrak station at 11:30 pm. I will let you know what they say.”

“Flush the Johns!”

“Trim the Bush
Circumsize Dick”

“Re-defeat Bush!
Kerry will lick Bush!”

“Mutt - It sounds like that story you posted is laiden with propaganda. That's not to say it's not creditible, however, if I'm the US, I'd be *throwing* every engagment to see how I could be defeated. Ya never show'em the goods, ever. More importantly with China right there watching.

Lull'em into a false sence of sercurity, letthem get fat thinking they can beat you, when we really have the upper hand.

What do you think?”

“Buddha, as this article talks about, the Dems are going to have one heck of a time reigning in healthcare costs and pleasing their supporters. You may be pipe dreaming.


Sharing the lawsuit wealth
Thomas Sowell
August 3, 2004

My ears picked up when my wife told me that she was one of the beneficiaries of a class-action lawsuit that brought a settlement of more than $100 million.
"How many millions do you get?" I asked. I could envision our retiring to the Riviera or some such place. Here was our chance to become part of "the rich" we hear denounced during election years.
It turned out that this was a lawsuit in behalf of some stockholders, and her few shares of stock would receive 58 cents each -- minus various deductions. It probably wouldn't add up to enough to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
What about the lawyers who won this settlement?
They would receive more than $25 million for their services, which is a lot of cups of coffee, even at Starbucks.
This was an all too typical scenario for a big-bucks class action lawsuit. A few years ago, I was also one of a zillion beneficiaries of a class action lawsuit, but I cannot recall how much money -- or rather, how little money -- I was entitled to.
I am not sure it would have covered the cost of a first-class stamp to write in and claim my share.
Class action lawsuits are seen by some as a wonderful way for high-minded lawyers to come to the rescue of "the little people" who individually do not have a large enough claim to justify hiring their own attorneys, but who in the aggregate have claims running into the millions.
It is a lovely vision -- and, like so many other lovely visions -- it bears little resemblance to reality.
Another lovely vision in the legal profession is the "pro bono" lawyer -- the lawyer who charges his clients nothing but fights the case "pro bono publico," for the good of the public. At first it sounds like these lawyers are selfless crusaders for us all. But there are pro bono lawyers who make more money than you or I are ever likely to see.
When pro bono lawyers win a case against a local, state or federal government agency, they are often awarded attorney's fees far exceeding what any client would be likely to pay them. It is precisely the "publico" -- the taxpayers -- who get hit with the hefty bills for pro bono lawyers.
Then there are the so-called "trial lawyers" -- who seldom actually go to trial. They bring charges against businesses like Wal-Mart and hope that the threat of bad publicity, with falling sales and declining profits, will cause these businesses to settle out of court to the tune of millions of dollars.
Trial lawyers also sue doctors and hospitals, whose insurance companies are often afraid to go to trial, for fear that a slick lawyer with junk science and a gullible jury can cost them many millions of dollars.
John Edwards was one such trial lawyer before he became a Senator and now a vice-presidential candidate. His specialty was claiming that brain-damaged babies were the fault of doctors who failed to have these babies delivered by Caesarian section.
With a heart-wrenching human tragedy, a lawyer skilled at playing on the jury's emotions, and a well-insured defendant, it was virtually inevitable that millions of dollars in damages would be awarded. John Edwards is estimated to have collected $60 million.
Since then, a massive factual study has been done, and validated by medical authorities here and in countries as far away as Australia, showing no such correlation between Caesarian operations and the prevention of brain-damage in babies.
Such operations have now increased greatly, protecting doctors from lawsuits but not protecting babies from brain damage. The cost of health care is driven up, not only by huge damage awards, but also by costly medical procedures that are unnecessary for the patients' health but imperative to keep doctors from being ruined financially by big damage awards or skyrocketing insurance costs.
Democrats who loudly proclaim a need to "bring down the cost of health care" haven't the slightest interest in stopping trial lawyers from driving up the cost of health care. Every attempt to penalize those whose charges prove to be false is bitterly opposed by Democrats, who receive financial support from trial lawyers.
That support is not chump change like 58 cents.





Reverend, your ad hominem attack has nothing to do with being informed my being informed. You beg the question. How will Kerry make it worth their while monetarily? You’re not giving me an answer here. Where will the money come from?


Kerry says he will raise taxes on households earning over $200,000/year. As this census data shows (http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032003/hhinc/new06_000.htm), only two percent of households earn over $200,000/year. He’s going to fund all of his programs AND pay off the debt by this method?

Man, if a lot of you well informed people will be voting for Kerry. Why don’t you people know the specifics of his platform?”

“Below is directly from Kerry's website. If you have any future questions, just try googling for it instead of wigging out over here like some sort of petulant schoolboy in economics class.




Provide an immediate tax break for small businesses and family farms by raising the estate tax exemption to $4 million per couple and $10 million per couple for a family-owned business or farm. The estate tax would be maintained for the largest estates.
Restore the top two tax brackets to their levels under President Clinton.
Restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.
Maintain the phase-out of personal exemptions and itemized deductions (PEP and PEASE)
The Kerry-Edwards discretionary spending proposals will be paid for by freezing or cutting non-priority programs, which will save a substantial amount over the next ten years. In addition, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use offsets to fund proposals. Some examples:

Extend Superfund (saves $17 billion over ten years)
Collect royalties for mineral rights on Federal lands (saves $1 billion over ten years)
Cut electricity use by the Federal government by 20 percent in 10 years (saves $14 billion over ten years)
Cut subsidies to high-income corporate farmers
Freeze the Federal travel budget (saves $10 billion over ten years)
Reduce the number of contractors employed by the Federal government by 100,000 (saves $50 billion over ten years). The Federal government employed 5.6 million contractors in 1999 - more than three times the number of civil servants. The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce the number of contractors by 100,000.”

“"He’s going to fund all of his programs AND pay off the debt by this method?"


No he won't. Plain and simple. It's a step in the right direction however.

Once again, a Republican administration has left our fiscal house in a complete mess.

One would almost think they want to bankrupt the nation they profess to love so much.

hmmm?”

“I think it's pretty clear from the phrase: The Kerry-Edwards discretionary spending proposals will be paid for by freezing or cutting non-priority programs, which will save a substantial amount over the next ten years.
This candidate is interested in restoring fiscal sanity to the country.”

“To: TT Right Wingers

From: Q

Date: 8/06/04

RE: Lastest News Not Favorable/Possible Trouble Ahead/You Guys Are In Some Serious Trouble

Right Wingers of TT,


It has come to my attention that Faux News has provided some information that might be damaging to your *cause*. The only recourse that can be taken due to this manner, is to keep attacking the left, name calling is acceptable and would someone please get that picture of Kerry and the hooker out here.

For your information, I feel it nessesary to provide you withthe following information, as your actions in the above manner need to be untaken A.S.A.P. By the way, please feel free to bring the big guns on this, as you have a lot to loose now.


I give you, the fair and balanced report:

08/05/04 Poll: Small Convention Bump for Kerry
Thursday, August 05, 2004
By Dana Blanton


The race for the White House remains tight with the Democratic nominee receiving a small bump after his party's convention in Boston. In addition, little movement in the race can be expected in the remaining 90 days of the campaign as majorities of voters say they strongly support their candidate and that their minds are definitely made up, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

While not moving the race numbers much, the convention does appear to have improved Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry's (search) image with the public. At the same time, President George W. Bush's job approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency.

The latest FOX News poll shows Kerry receives 46 percent to incumbent Bush's 43 percent in a head-to-head matchup among registered voters. The results are unchanged when independent candidate Ralph Nader (search) is added to the race, with two percent backing Nader, 46 percent Kerry and 42 percent Bush. Kerry's advantage is within the poll's three-percentage point margin of error.

In the two-way matchup, Kerry went from being dead even against Bush to having a three point edge. In the three-way race, Kerry went from being one-point behind to having a four-point advantage. And while the bump may be less than what the Democrats had hoped for, the 46 percent Kerry receives in the new poll is his best showing so far.

If Voting For President Today...

After the Democratic National Convention Before the Democratic National Convention Pre-/Post-National Convention Difference
Now July 20-21
Kerry 46% 44% Kerry Change +2
Bush 43% 44% Bush Change -1


The polarized electorate, which has been evident in most polls since the 2000 election, shows little room for movement. Most voters say their current vote preference is definite, with one in five saying there is a chance they will change their mind.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national poll of 900 registered voters for Fox News on August 3-4.

Previously, polling showed men more likely to back Bush, while support among women broke in Kerry's favor. In the latest poll, Kerry increased his vote among men by six percentage points and is now even with Bush, while still holding a nine-point edge among women. The Democrat also increases his support somewhat among independent voters this week, up four points since before the convention.

One major difference between Bush voters and Kerry voters is the reason behind their vote choice. Among Bush supporters, a large majority (82 percent) describes their vote as "for Bush," with few (12 percent) saying their vote is "against Kerry." The results among Kerry voters are more evenly divided — a slim 53 percent majority describes their vote as "for Kerry" and 41 percent say it is a vote "against Bush."

Better Describes Vote for President

Bush Voters Kerry Voters
For my candidate 82% 53%
Against opponent 12 41


Where did Kerry make gains since his party's convention? The number of Kerry backers who say they support him "strongly" has increased the last couple of months, and that trend continues with a six point post-convention rise. Today, 66 percent of Kerry voters say they "strongly support" him, up from 60 percent before the convention and 53 percent in June.

Kerry's current level of "strong" support is now much closer to the high percentages President Bush has enjoyed for months. Fully 73 percent of Bush voters say they support him "strongly," which is down from 76 percent two weeks ago and from a high of 78 percent in May.

Another area where Kerry received a post-convention boost is on the attribute of "strong leader." While Bush still has a small advantage over Kerry as the candidate more voters see as being a strong leader, the gap is much narrower — Bush had a 19-point edge before the convention and today that has closed to four-percentage points.

Which Candidate "Is a Stronger Leader"?

Bush Kerry Bush
Advantage
Now 44% 40 +4
Before Convention 50% 31 +19


Kerry made gains on other characteristics as well, including now holding a seven-point edge over Bush as the candidate seen as being "more honest and trustworthy," and an 11-point lead as the candidate who "understands the average American better."

Overall impressions of Kerry and his vice presidential running mate Senator John Edwards are more positive today. Kerry's favorable rating is up eight points and now stands at 52 percent — his highest favorable rating to date.

Edwards's favorable receives a similar boost and is now at 51 percent. Personal favorable ratings for President Bush (47 percent) and Vice President Dick Cheney (40 percent), are both down a few points from last month.

Current Impressions of the Candidates

Favorable Unfavorable
John Kerry 52% 34
John Edwards 51% 28
George W. Bush 47% 45
Dick Cheney 40% 46


President Bush's job performance rating dipped in the last two weeks, with 44 percent today saying they approve and 48 percent disapprove, which is the lowest job rating he has ever received in a Fox News poll. Bush lost ground among both men and women, but his approval rating also fell seven points among Republicans.

The poll asked voters to rate which candidate would do a better job on several issues being discussed in the campaign right now. Bush's biggest advantage is on handling the war on terrorism, where he has a six-point edge over Kerry, but that is down from a 15-point edge before the convention. On taxes and handling the situation in Iraq, the candidates are tied.

Kerry does best on the domestic issues. By 47 percent to 34 percent Kerry outdoes Bush on the issue of education, widening his lead here by nine points since June. In addition, Kerry has an 18-point lead over Bush as the candidate who would do a better job on health care. On the top priority issue to voters in this year's presidential election — the economy — Kerry now has the edge over Bush (44 percent to 36 percent).

"What we see post-convention is actually a strengthening of the polarization in the electorate. Kerry voters are now more confident in their man and more committed to him," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "The ability of the Bush campaign to paint Kerry with a negative brush has been diminished and so has the chance for any major electoral movement. Given the closeness of the race, this may diminish the value of trying to use television to persuade voters and enhance the value of traditional get-out-the-vote efforts. With roughly equal numbers of voters on each side, getting them to the polls becomes crucial."

Ratings on the nation's economy have improved somewhat since three months ago. Today, 36 percent of Americans rate the economy positively, up from 31 percent in May.

When voters pick which one issue will be most important in deciding their presidential vote preference, the economy continues to top the list (25 percent), followed closely by terrorism/homeland security (22 percent). Health care comes in third at 18 percent, followed by Iraq (14 percent), education (10 percent) and taxes (three percent).

A 52 percent majority thinks President Bush has a clear plan for protecting the country from terrorism, but a 56 percent majority thinks he does not have a plan for protecting jobs, and half of voters do not think Bush has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.

When asked the same questions about Kerry, the Democratic challenger does best on having a clear plan for protecting jobs in the United States, as just over half (51 percent) think he does. On terrorism and Iraq, pluralities say Kerry does not have a clear plan, but it should also be noted that on both of these about one in five are unable to give an opinion.

By 43 percent to 34 percent, voters think it would be bad for the United States to change presidents during a war, with 17 percent saying it would not make a difference. Predictable party differences are seen here, with 76 percent of Republicans saying it would be bad for the country to change presidents during wartime compared to 17 percent of Democrats who think so.

War on Terrorism and the 9/11 Commission

As the presidential candidates and Congress begin to debate the recommendations made by the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, the poll asked voters about their familiarity with the recommendations. A majority says they are familiar with the Commission's proposals (15 percent "very familiar" and 44 percent "somewhat familiar"), while almost four in 10 say they are unfamiliar.

One of the recommendations is to create the position of national intelligence director to coordinate the activities of all U.S. intelligence agencies. Many Americans (52 percent) think it is likely the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented, had there been a national intelligence director.

Even with the poll being conducted after the recent increase in the terror alert level in areas of the East Coast, more than half of Americans (52 percent) think the United States is safer today than before 9/11 (down from 58 percent in March). Over a quarter think the country is less safe and 15 percent say there has been no change.

And while some Democrats have questioned the timing of raising the terror alert, only about a quarter of Americans (28 percent) think the new terror alert warnings were "politically motivated." Half of Americans think the action was taken based on "real intelligence," and 12 percent say "some of both."

A large majority of Republicans (73 percent) thinks raising the alert level was based on real intelligence, as do 33 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of independents. Only 13 percent of Republicans think the action was politically motivated, compared to 40 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents.



As we can see, your President has the lowest approval rating in his tenure.

Yous guys on that side of the aisle need to panic, *right* now....”

“And yet, even with the worst publicity of the war et al, Bush still isn't more than the margin of error below Kerry in popularity. That's scary - for Kerry boosters. The worst possible publicity equates to a dead heat. Hmm....”

“I now have a Kerry Edwards bumper sticker on my car. I walked around Washington, DC today and it looks like a warzone. It's really sad. We sure have turned a corner, down the wrong street.”

“I know this changes from area to area, but...I don't know a single Democrat thats planning to vote for Bush, but I know at least 8/10 Republicans that are voting for Kerry.”

“This is one of the most telling things about this "poll".

"The results among Kerry voters are more evenly divided — a slim 53 percent majority describes their vote as "for Kerry" and 41 percent say it is a vote "against Bush....."


Now, as you all know, I really don;t believe in watching these polls at this point, as they are just "horse race" type polls for the most part.

This article details an intensity type poll, which is a good indication of how likely voters feel about the candidate they are choosing. The article alos has a sence of "dread", if you will, almost humbling.

What the above snipet that I've used, is a direct response to bisons inquiry about "where are the corss overs", and understand that I am not quoting him exactly.

There is more of an anit-Bush vote out there, with more to come, IMHO.


Those that try to lead everyoe down turning a corner, are turning us into an alley, with a deadend.

Jobs are still down one million sice Bush took office.

Consumer confidance is down.

Unemployment, in context in this day, compared to the 3.someting percent during Clinton, is up to 5.5 or so. It might not be rising because benifits have run out and people have quit looking, or are under employed. Yet,those on the right side of the aisle will telling you that small business start ups are up.


Well, no kidding. If ya can't find a job, you got put food onthe table some way. Either sell drigs, rob a bank, or start a small business. Good thing we still are not at that point of turing on each other for income.”

“And the bankruptcy figures?


Somehow I don't see many 'Reagan Democrats' pulling George's marshmallows out of the fire.”

“Tilt - I live next to the "Reagan Dem country", which is Macomb county and they're voting Dem this time around....”

“lmao Q!

Heathcare is a huge clusterfuk! There is no doubt! Why is this, because if you privatize something that every human being in this country needs (including energy, education, etc.) the greed is like a feeding frenzy alike a dead carcass in a pool of starving pirranhas. The pirranhas in this case are insurance comapnies.

To Arclite: You bash lawyers for driving up HC costs because of class action lawsuits, yet you fail to condem the loose practices that brought the lawsuits in the first place. Maybe if companies admit they made a mistake and corrected it, you wouldn't have to knock em' over the head with a big stick to make them stop. It's simple business 101. If it's cost effective to cheat, cheat! We need class action suits to keep these greedy bastards honest, and our neighbors safe.”

“No, no, no. These nasty trial lawyers just pull these case out of their adzes. They just appear out of nowhere, not because insurance companies won't play fair. The citizens of this country should be happy to get a thousand dollars for each limb and go home and shut up.”

“My shadow's
Shedding skin
and I've been picking
scabs again.
I'm down
digging through
my old muscles
for a clue.
I've been crawling on my belly
clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own confused
and insecure delusions
for a piece to cross me over
or a word to guide me in.
I wanna feel the changes coming down.
I wanna know what I've been hiding
in”

“Here's what I don't understand about health care...

Unions, that traditionally have good health care plans, usually support nationalized health care.

Businesses, that would normally salivate at a government contract or a chance to jettison a large set of expenses, usually oppose it.

I've never been able to figure out the politics of this issue.”

“Don't feel alone RL.”

“I have a theory on that. Many companies don't offer healthcare, or full payment for coverage. If we get a national plan, taxes on businesses will go up, and the companies who pay little or no healthcare costs will now have an additional expense. This may be why they resist.

I know the BOE's that I negotiate with would not mind seeing some sort of national plan. The burden of the costs are sending our schools into a fiscal tail spin.”

“That's for sure, BB.

BTW, today, Kerry visits the Grand Canyon in Arizona. I can just see Kerry standing on one of the overlooks saying, "this campaign will stop the erosion of jobs..." or "we will pull ourselves from the deep, dark pit of Iraq..." or "America is in a hole right now."

Sorry.”

“Or, better yet, he's standing there next to one of those mule teams and points to one of them and says, "George, glad that you could come."”

“Ah Phaedrus, you debate just as childishly as always. A good discussion is where everyone learns something. This seems to have escaped your grasp (again). Many folks on the left like Ad Hominem attacks. I guess it makes up for your inability to debate.



Who can tell me that Kerry is going to provide enough incentive from his tax cuts that jobs won’t be outsourced to other countries? Let me post that Kerry quote again:

“As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas.”

I ask again, WHAT TAX CUTS? WHAT INCENTIVES? Where are the dollars and cents of this proposal? I will say, right here, right now, that this is an empty campaign promise.

I know of a small business owner who is thinking about outsourcing. When asked about the Kerry plan, his comment was that it was a ridiculous promise. The government can’t provide this small business owner with enough incentive not to outsource. The market is changing, we all have to adapt rather than expecting the gov’mint to rescue us from the evils of free market business.



Reverend, again you provide no answer to my question. I say you have no answer because the Kerry promise isn’t true and even you aren’t foolish enough to believe his empty promise.



In a service economy, the product is services.

When government provides services such as healthcare, retirement pensions, administration of public lands, jail services, police services, fire services, building inspection services, … it is controlling the production of services. What kind of economic system is this? If you socialists get your way, our economy will likely move in the direction of those other great European economies. Only time will tell.



In the meanwhile, it is obvious that none of you Kerry supporters have a clue about how he can provide enough gov’mint funds to keep jobs from moving overseas. The political season is upon us.”

“Well, for what it's worth, arclite, RL put it best on another thread.

As everyone knows, the President doesn't work alone in setting policy. He can offer a million diffrent things, but it it doesn't clear Congress, there is very little he can do on his own. He could issue an exectuive order, but that could be over tunred in court.

So, the President has to be able to work with Congress to get things past. Seeing how the control is laid out now, it's a wonder that the Repubs aren't in tehe gravy right now.

Supposedly, there is a loophole in the tax code that helps companies outsorce. One of the goals of Kerry ideals, is to close that loophole. I will admit that I have not had the time to get indepth with his plan because of school; however, from what I do see of him, he is at least a lot better of a person to be our Head of Government. Also, I like the fire that his wife brings and I think she would be a great addition to help take care of the Head of State duties with Edwards. In addition, and Iknow that we will differ on tis, but I think that Wes Clark would be a great Sec of Defense, which is the post I believe he will get.

I look at Kerry has being able to communitcate better with the American people, than our current stumble bum. I'm really sick of the fake down home persona Bush projects. It's not real, and it really reflects poorly on us to the rest of the world.

We all know that Kerry could run around saying what ever the hell he wants, very little of it will come true. It nevetr does with anyone running for office. Remember healthcare in 90 days? That never came about, but Clinton turned out to be OK in the long run. How many proises did Bush break when he became President?

Well, he does have the luxury of 9/11 when it comes to that question, and is a great "out" for him.

If you don't see anything you like in him, or don't like what you investigated about him, don't vote for him. I will admit that I don't completly believe in his message, as I don't believe 100% in any politicans messages; there just a wish list. I am one of the many that feel that our current leader has done this country a disservice; therefore I can not get him my vote, which is an unfortunate situation for me. My *guy* never wins. Perot lost (twice), Gore lost and Clark lost the nod. Wo knows, maybe by me supporting Kerry, I've doomed this country to other four years of poor leadership!”

“Arcy, the plain truth is that sKerry has already over-extended his promises. The only way he will cover even half of his campaign promises is to raise taxes. So either there will no only be no tax cuts for the middle (I look for them to go up) or he will tax the shlt out of the uppers which will do nothing but hurt the economy. Those who don't think trickle down works will see first hand what the reverse trickle down will do to us.

In the simplest terms, sKerry is lying to us.”

“Nigal, Kerry will probably put us into that death-spiral of an economy that we barely survived under the last Democratic administration.”

“Nigal,

The economy has been propped up by three large government interventions under Bush. He cut taxes. His fed. nominee Greenspan kept interest rates low. And Bush massively increased government spending.

The Republicans didn't want to cut government spending because it was an additional economic stimulus.

They wanted the government to spend us out of the recession.

Well, it didn't work. It would be better to return to the limited government days of President Clinton.

Kerry=Less Government”

“Talk about a flip-flop.

The Dems want smaller government, the Repub want more of it.

The Dems want to reduce spending, the Repubs have increased it.

Those that say Kerry has flip-floped, have been supporting a massive flip-flop in platforms.

This is what the right want to have happen. They want to blur the line so bad, that people think that there is no difference between the two parties and hope to capitalize on it. The Keyes thing is the same thing. Run a person that looks like the person he's running against.

This is why I say that the right is ready and rip for a split. There more liberal than the left, or so they try and make it out like they are.

Bush ran as such a liberal platform, that most voters in teh last election didn't even know he was anti-aborton.

That alone sez a lot about our fellow Americans....”

“Kerry is going to solve all of your problems. ---Morons!”

““Supposedly, there is a loophole in the tax code that helps companies outsource.”

Laqtis


Supposedly? Supposedly? OK now don’t tell me you believed Kerry without even questioning the economics of his proposal? Most people tend to do that when they become polarized. It’s not the best way for us to elect our politicians.

The tax incentives for outsourcing include: Withholding Regulations, Social Security, Unemployment, and Workers Comp.

Check it out laqtis. What tax incentives could Kerry possibly provide that would overcome a cheaper labor force and not having to pay the previously mentioned payroll taxes? And what happens if you add mandatory health insurance? I guarantee you won’t be able to make the numbers work. Unless Kerry proposes that the government make up the difference (And making up the difference would be way too expensive), it just doesn’t add up.

Isn’t it amazing how they’re now talking about creating ANOTHER intelligence office? I must be pretty gullible, I thought that the Department of Homeland Security would consolidate the intelligence community. Turns out it just added more government. Man you can’t tell the parties without a program anymore.

I can’t argue with your assessment about Kerry being “a lot better of a person to be our Head of Government” It’s a personal choice, and I find it hard to argue against that point on so many fronts. I always vote third party. I only asked a question about that one particular subject.




“Kerry=Less Government"

reformed lurker


What are you smoking? He’s already talked about expanding government programs. Maybe he won’t be as dangerous while in office but right now he’s trying to be all things to all people. If it quacks like big government...


“The economy has been propped up by three large government interventions under Bush. He cut taxes. His fed. nominee Greenspan kept interest rates low. And Bush massively increased government spending.”

reformed lurker


You know, that’s exactly what I want my president to do when the economy goes south. One more time for the hard of understanding: The President does not control the economy. But he can influence it. Bush made some bold moves to keep us out of prolonged recession. The only thing is, he’s run out of options if the economy gets into trouble again.




"Kerry is going to solve all of your problems. ---Morons!"

UpUrs


Kerry can’t do it alone. He’ll need help to increase social spending before we can reach utopia. Then we can have a robust economy like our friends the French.”

“arclite - Why are all jobs not located in the countries with the cheapest labor?

How has this country become an economic powerhouse despite being among the first with union protection, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.?

Do you understand that labor cost is just one of myriad factors that go into siting decisions?

Would you invest capital in a country with poor infrastructure, a poor education system, no publicly funded basic research and political instability?

Why do you hold America in such low regard that you think we can only be competitive with the lowest possible wages, worker protections and tax structure? You conservatives sure have a negative outlook on the world.”

“arc 'ma man -

"I will admit that I have not had the time to get indepth with his plan because of school;...."


Dood! I thought that explained it.

I'll get around to seeing what the man has to offer, once I get all of these damn papers written!

Like I have a bunch of time check on stuff like this, geez, what...you think I'm employed still!?!?!



LOL!

PS - I'm almost there!”

“Well, RL, where's the money for all this spending going to come from?”

“Nigal,

Bush's reckless spending will be paid for in less generous social security, limited future spending options and higher taxes in the future.

I actually like the idea of growing our way out of the debt. But that requires less spending. Bush has accelerated the growth of the debt.

Kerry will be limited by a Republican Congress. That was the dynamic at play in the Gingrich/Clinton years. Spending was cut, but reasonably. Then the economy grew. Surplus.”