John Kerry

[rccar328]

There is if they are misrepresenting him.

But that's just it - Bush's ads aren't misrepresenting him...they describe him as a left of left (for the US) liberal, which is exactly what he is. Besides that, Kerry has no basis for accusing Bush of playing dirty politics by releasing "attack" ads - about all Kerry has done for his entire campaign is to attack Bush.

 

Please explain why that's interesting at all.

Well, gee, maybe if you'd read what I wrote in my other post, you'd see why it's interesting.

 

Originally posted by myself

But the simple truth of it is that John Kerry did say those things, in an interview with the Rolling Stone...but instead of admitting it, they blame it on a "virus"...yeah, right.

For some reason, people think I was criticizing Kerry for having cuss words on his website. I was not!!!!! I know how pointless that argument would be around here - too many people just don't care. AND BESIDES, THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

 

The point is that Kerry made his statements in an interview with the Rolling Stone, and lots of people knew about it. If, like you say, it doesn't matter that he cussed, then why should the Kerry campaign think it's necessary to lie to cover it up...which is exactly what they did? That, my friend, is the point.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

If, like you say, it doesn't matter that he cussed, then why should the Kerry campaign think it's necessary to lie to cover it up...which is exactly what they did? That, my friend, is the point.

 

Because, while the MAJORITY of people probably don't care that he cussed, I'm sure there are a fair number of parents who are so prim and proper that they would be HIGHLY offended by a presidential candidate using *gasp* the F-word.

[MennoniteHobbit]

I have also seen on TV, during a visit from John Kerry to I think in California, he mentions that he will raise minimum wage. What?????? This means that less people will be able to be hired, wouldn't it? Also, he mentions how it is unfair how some people cannot pay for college in CA, so he has promised to create a scholarship to pay for four years of college for whoever meets the requirements. I would also like to ask where this money would come from. Wouldn't all this money come from taxes? I saw this clip on Fox News Channel yesterday. Just wondering.

 

p.s. I don't like people cursing. I personally do not curse. But, most of the time, I can tolerate it, as long as it does not directly offend someone like "f*** you!" I also don't like the fact that someone as dignified as Kerry would say that. It may not be a big deal, but it's just that he said it. but that's just me. don't mind me.

 

Oh and rccar, please calm down if you aren't already. No offense. Your post seemed very angered.

[rccar328]

I have also seen on TV, during a visit from John Kerry to I think in California, he mentions that he will raise minimum wage. What?????? This means that less people will be able to be hired, wouldn't it? Also, he mentions how it is unfair how some people cannot pay for college in CA, so he has promised to create a scholarship to pay for four years of college for whoever meets the requirements. I would also like to ask where this money would come from. Wouldn't all this money come from taxes?

Well, raising the minimum wage basically does two things - it raises prices and makes it so companies cannot afford to hire as many workers. It sounds good to workers because for a while, it allows them to have more money, but eventually, the after-effects catch up with them and they're back in the same situation they were in in the first place...which is why the minimum wage keeps going up and up and up...

 

As far as paying for four years of college tuition, personally, I'd like to know what requirements Kerry has in mind - there already are government programs to pay for college for students from poor families...it's called the Pell Grant. And I checked his website...funny thing about Kerry - he never brings up just how he's gonna pay for all of his spending measures.......

 

Maybe he'll just raise taxes on those "rich corporations" so that they'll be further encouraged to move their operations overseas...when will Kerry realize that the way to bring businesses into America is by not taxing them as much?

 

The world may never know...

 

 

And sorry about shouting earlier...people would not get the point, and I let it frustrate me.

 

And I agree with you - I tried to stay away from this point because I realize that many people just don't care, but cussing like Kerry did isn't exactly presidential behavior, no matter your beliefs about obscenities.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Let the rich continue getting richer while letting the poor suffer right?

 

Now big corporation bosses can have salaries up to 175 millions per year. Now if they can't give a small raise for their lower workers, they should buy some humanity with that money. Minimum doesn't go up a huge notch. Usually 10 cents everytime, sometimes 20 or 30 but rarely.

 

Raising taxes has its bad things for people who have little community spirit.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by rccar328

Maybe he'll just raise taxes on those "rich corporations" so that they'll be further encouraged to move their operations overseas...when will Kerry realize that the way to bring businesses into America is by not taxing them as much?

 

Gee, either way it's the buisnesses that win. Bush isn't helping you know, he's actually PROMOTING outsourcing, even though he has the power to stop it. If Kerry gets into office, and raises both the taxes and vetos outsourcing, then the problem will be solved for the most part.

[MennoniteHobbit]

lukeiamyourdad

Let the rich continue getting richer while letting the poor suffer right?

 

No. But, with all of these promised of Kerry being able to give the poor a lot of chances by giving them possibilites for money, I just want to ask, WHERE WILL ALL OF THIS MONEY COME FROM? Wouldn't it come from the taxpayers? It would come from everyone wouldn't it? Also, we shouldn't have to punish ALL of the rich... after all, some/most rich people had to work REALLY hard in life to achieve their financial status. We may want to support the poor, but we never really know if the poor we're supporting actually deserve the money. For example, this guy, Bob, is mentally disabled, and his parents are dead. He cannot have a job and get money. So, the government gives him welfare. Ok, that is perfectly fine. But, Joe over here never does any work. He's too lazy, just doesn't want to do anything. He doesn't have a job either, and pretends that he is eligible for welfare. He gets it. So, do we really know if the money we give to the poor is actually deserved? This reminds me (slightly) of communism. I have seen many people in Vietnam, that are lazy and do not even try to work at all. Then, on the other side, I see a hardworking family working in a factory. The both receive the same amount of money, regardless of work. This is what I do not like.

 

Also, I would like to congratulate Kerry's military voting record. He opposed most to all of the weapons/defense proposals. This includes the Apache, Tomahawk missile (I think), and others. So, he is going to take away all of our "defense chest." Where will this money go to?

[ET Warrior]

So, since some people abuse it, we just shouldn't offer help to poor people.

 

"We're really sorry you lost all your money and your home due to job layoffs, but we aren't going ot offer any aid because some people will take advantage of it."

[lukeiamyourdad]

LOL! You've never seen Vietnam did you? People who get free cash over there have relatives that fought alongside the North Vietnamese army or Viet Cong. That's why they don't work. You've never seen the poor people over there. They don't get a single dime.

 

The people who take advantage of these kind of welfare systems compose a small minority of the users. Most of them will try to get out of their situation because welfare doesn't give you enough money for anything. Rent a very small apartment with it and you're left with a few bucks to eat for a month.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

So, since some people abuse it, we just shouldn't offer help to poor people.

 

"We're really sorry you lost all your money and your home due to job layoffs, but we aren't going ot offer any aid because some people will take advantage of it."

 

No, I'm just saying that we never really know if the support is deserved. But you're only focusing on the rich getting richer. Not the poor also getting support.

 

And actually, I have, considering I am Vietnamese and my grandfather and other family members fought in the War. Of course, there ARE people who are disabled who can't work. Of course there is a majority of Vietnamese who are way below the poverty level. But, there's always that percentage of people who abuse welfare. Yes, they may compose a small percentage, but if they really only compose that minimal a percentage, then ok that's fine. But still, I would like to ask where all of this money will come from. Kerry makes all of these promises. They may sound good, but where will they all come from is what I'm asking. Where? The money that Kerry takes away from the military? Where?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Minor Tax hike.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

The money that Kerry takes away from the military? Where?

 

That actually seems like a really good idea to me. Why do we put so much freaking money into our military, while we have people starving and living in the streets in our own country? Spend half of that money on the poor and then I wouldn't be so upset about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[the_farce]

I'll admit, John Kerry Flip Flops. But the man was in the senate for a good 20-30 years. IDEALS CHANGE, and John Kerry most likely had to vote accordingly.

 

That's my two cents.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

That actually seems like a really good idea to me. Why do we put so much freaking money into our military, while we have people starving and living in the streets in our own country? Spend half of that money on the poor and then I wouldn't be so upset about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

 

True, true, but still, we have to put at least three-fourths to four-fifths of the military spending there, and use the remaining money to elsewhere.

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Minor Tax hike.

 

How much of a "minor tax hike" I would like to know.

 

Also, I notice people keep saying that tax cuts make the rich richer and the poor poorer... are you suggesting that poor people who don't pay taxes should receive tax cuts? Either way, you're only concentrating on the rich getting more money from tax cuts... they pay taxes too you know... a lot more than average people do because of their profits. People who can barely pay taxes who do pay them do get breaks... from tax cuts. Just my thoughts... (If i'm wrong about rich people paying more taxes because they have more income, please tell me if I'm wrong about this.)

[lukeiamyourdad]

They do pay a higher percentage of taxes. However, the difference between the percentage of a middle-class person and a rich person is minor.

 

The rich(here I'm talking about people who have incomes in the +500 000$) always find ways to bypass the system so they won't pay taxes or less taxes. It's common practice.

 

Actually, if everyone would pay their taxes there won't even be a taxe hike at all.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

They do pay a higher percentage of taxes. However, the difference between the percentage of a middle-class person and a rich person is minor.

 

The rich(here I'm talking about people who have incomes in the +500 000$) always find ways to bypass the system so they won't pay taxes or less taxes. It's common practice.

 

Actually, if everyone would pay their taxes there won't even be a taxe hike at all.

 

Ok, thanks.

[rccar328]

John Kerry has come up with his own version of the misery index...except his misery index has been crafted to make the President look bad because the real misery index didn't.

 

 

 

Kerry's campaign has invented a new "misery index" that makes Bush's economic record look, well, miserable. Why a new index? Perhaps because the classic "misery index" -- which adds together the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation -- currently is better than it's been in most years since World War II. In fact, it's less than half the miserable level reached in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, and better than in any of Clinton's first four years:

 

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Misery Index (like I wasn't before I heard about this):

The original "misery index" is simply the jobless rate added to the inflation rate. The term was coined by economist Arthur Okun, an economic adviser in Lyndon Johnson’s administration. It was widely used during the "stagflation" of the '70s and '80s when stagnant economic growth kept unemployment high and inflation reduced the buying power of wages.

 

And here's what Kerry has done with his "misery index:"

Rather than use all consumer prices, the Kerry index cherry-picks three items that have gone up faster than the overall rate of inflation: college tuition (at public four-year universities only), gasoline, and health care.

 

And rather than use the overall unemployment rate -- which was 5.5% at this point in Clinton's first term, only two-tenths of one percent lower than now -- Kerry has used the number of jobs, which produces a more negative picture.

 

Other statistical indicators chosen by Kerry are median family income and bankruptcies, which have both worsened under Bush, and home ownership -- the only one of the seven indicators in the Kerry index to show improvement.

 

So, I guess we can give Kerry kudos for putting home ownership in there, but basically what this amounts to is John Kerry creating a false image of America by trying to evaluate the entire image of the nation based on a few "cherry-picked" indicators.

 

It seems to me that all John Kerry is doing is fearmongering. He's trying to make America's economic situation look worse than it really is...I mean, let's face it, the economy is improving, jobs are on the rise, things seem to be going pretty well in America.

 

Sorry, John.

[SkinWalker]

I agree. Kerry's "misery index" seems to be an outright fallacy.

 

He's still got my vote though..... that shortcoming is pretty small in light of the Bush Admin's consistent failures and deceptions.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

It seems to me that all John Kerry is doing is fearmongering. He's trying to make America's economic situation look worse than it really is...I mean, let's face it, the economy is improving, jobs are on the rise, things seem to be going pretty well in America.

 

Wanting it to be so in order to fuel the neo-con agenda doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

There's always a flipside, eh? http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzecon223768078apr22,0,4503834,print.story?coll=ny-nybusiness-headlines

 

April 22, 2004

 

WASHINGTON - The nation's economic recovery is proceeding vigorously, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday, raising the prospect that interest rates "must rise at some point."

 

Fair enough. But Greenspan continued:

 

But workers who bore the brunt of the recession and sluggish recovery still face obstacles. "The anxiety that many in our work force feel will not subside quickly," Greenspan said.

 

"Long-term unemployment remains a serious problem. Last month, 85,000 Americans a week exhausted unemployment benefits, compared with 35,000 a week in September 2000."

 

Face it... Bush & Co. screwed us. We'll recover, but it will hurt. New leadership is needed. Leadership that doesn't seek to pad corporate pockets and benefit from selling out Americans to corporations. The Neo-Conservative movement within the Republican Party amounts to a band of traitors.

 

Loyal Americans, like Senators Kerry or McCain are needed in the Executive Branch.

[toms]

a few years back 7 out of 10 of the top 10 use businesses didn't pay ANY TAX AT ALL. I somehow doubt this has changed much. If the richest companies can afford to pay people to get them around the tax laws, you can bet the richest peple can too.

 

It always makes me laugh to see americans complain about tax, as they probably pay the least tax of any western country. The UK pays way more tax than the US, and europe pays way more than the UK. Of course, the more tax you pay the more services you don't have to pay for... personally i feel that it all evens out in the end, it is simply a matter of ideaology which approach you prefer.

 

I'd like to see figures comparing how much total (tax plus dental, medical, education etc..) US people pay for comparable services.

 

What has definatley changed over the last half century is the balance between businesses and individuals. Back when current tax laws were being crafted the majority of tax was payed by businesses, these days the majority is payed by individuals.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

It seems to me that all John Kerry is doing is fearmongering.

 

You want to talk about fearmongering? How about the way that G.W. has acted in office. His entire policy seems to be make the populace so afraid of terrorism so that he can do whatever he wants.

 

How about the terrorism warning levels? Or the website (I forget what it was called...getready.gov?) whose sole purpose was explaining what to do in the event of a 'terrorist attack' Or when everyone was supposed to duct tape saran wrap over their windows to protect us all from anthrax. The only thing THAT accomplished was to cause a number of American citizens to panic and live in fear, and subsequently believe anything they were told about terrorists.

 

The warning levels upset me the most, I mean, how exactly is it going to help ANYONE to know that there is a better chance of terrorists making some sort of attack today than there was yesterday?

 

Don't blame the Kerry administration of fear mongering when the one you're supporting are the masters of it.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I have also seen on TV, during a visit from John Kerry to I think in California, he mentions that he will raise minimum wage. What?????? This means that less people will be able to be hired, wouldn't it?

 

That is one side effect, yes. However it is widely accepted that that effect is largely insignificant compared to the boost in living standard for those who are employed.

 

Also, he mentions how it is unfair how some people cannot pay for college in CA, so he has promised to create a scholarship to pay for four years of college for whoever meets the requirements. I would also like to ask where this money would come from. Wouldn't all this money come from taxes?

 

Consider it an investment. If the people are more educated, they will be more able to compete with the citizens of foreign countries for jobs.

 

I saw this clip on Fox News Channel yesterday. Just wondering.

 

I'm wondering as well... Why people whatch a crap sender like that.

 

p.s. I don't like people cursing.

 

Your problem entirely.

 

Well, raising the minimum wage basically does two things - it raises prices and makes it so companies cannot afford to hire as many workers. It sounds good to workers because for a while, it allows them to have more money, but eventually, the after-effects catch up with them and they're back in the same situation they were in in the first place...which is why the minimum wage keeps going up and up and up...

 

*sigh* We had that debate in Denmark as well... About a century ago. The empirical data says that you're wrong. The mechanism that you have forgotten is that the company owners have to accept a smaller part of the cut, because their products will otherwise be so expensive that people will go elsewere. Possibly beyond the country's borders.

 

As far as paying for four years of college tuition, personally, I'd like to know what requirements Kerry has in mind - there already are government programs to pay for college for students from poor families...it's called the Pell Grant.

 

You know, where I come from education is free... All the way from pre-school to University (well, you have to buy your own books and stuff, but that's it).

 

And I checked his website...funny thing about Kerry - he never brings up just how he's gonna pay for all of his spending measures.......

 

A curious habit. One that dubya has fallen prey to as well. As has, I might add, just about every other politician I can think of.

 

Maybe he'll just raise taxes on those "rich corporations" so that they'll be further encouraged to move their operations overseas...when will Kerry realize that the way to bring businesses into America is by not taxing them as much?

 

The key is taxing them based on their income. They can't move that overseas. Of course, they can stop operating in the US, but who really wants to cut himself off from such a lucrative market?

 

but cussing like Kerry did isn't exactly presidential behavior, no matter your beliefs about obscenities.

 

Some of us here consider lying a less 'presidential behavior'...

 

No. But, with all of these promised of Kerry being able to give the poor a lot of chances by giving them possibilites for money, I just want to ask, WHERE WILL ALL OF THIS MONEY COME FROM? Wouldn't it come from the taxpayers? It would come from everyone wouldn't it?

 

"Let the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest burdens." - Social Democratic maxim.

 

Also, we shouldn't have to punish ALL of the rich... after all, some/most rich people had to work REALLY hard in life to achieve their financial status.

 

Punish??? Punish? I'm positive I didn't read that right.

 

We may want to support the poor, but we never really know if the poor we're supporting actually deserve the money. [...] do we really know if the money we give to the poor is actually deserved?

 

No, you don't know. That's why it's so damn hard to maintain a system like that. The system you have now is easy to maintain, because it only requires citizens to vote for a pro-democratic party on election day (and, I'm sometimes concerned, the American people seems to be unable to do even that), whereas the Social-Democratic Welfare State requires the support of every citizen, all the time. Not just every X'th year. On the other hand, it is the economic system that is best able to handle a financial crisis. A Bust á la Wall Street could simply never happen in a Welfare State.

 

This reminds me (slightly) of communism.

 

I am sick and tired of hearing people compairing Kerry with Communism. Kerry is a LIBERAL, all right. Now 'liberal' is moderate right-wing. Communism is extremist left-wing. IMO, the political scale looks like this (from left to right):

 

Communism

 

Socialism

 

Social Democracy

 

Liberalism

 

Conservatism

 

Fascism

 

Liberalism has failed (Wall Street, anyone?). Socialism has failed (by being unable to create a working economy that didn't degenerate into Communism). Conservatism subscribes largely to Liberal economic policies. That leaves us with? That's right, you guessed it.

 

Also, I would like to congratulate Kerry's military voting record. He opposed most to all of the weapons/defense proposals. This includes the Apache, Tomahawk missile (I think), and others. So, he is going to take away all of our "defense chest." Where will this money go to?

 

Since the US already has the capacity to eradicate all human life from the face of the planet serveral times over, I'd think that spending more on defence would be overkill in every sense of the word.

 

I'll admit, John Kerry Flip Flops. But the man was in the senate for a good 20-30 years. IDEALS CHANGE, and John Kerry most likely had to vote accordingly.

 

Da capo, da capo!

 

Also, I notice people keep saying that tax cuts make the rich richer and the poor poorer... are you suggesting that poor people who don't pay taxes should receive tax cuts? Either way, you're only concentrating on the rich getting more money from tax cuts... they pay taxes too you know... a lot more than average people do because of their profits. People who can barely pay taxes who do pay them do get breaks... from tax cuts. Just my thoughts... (If i'm wrong about rich people paying more taxes because they have more income, please tell me if I'm wrong about this.)

 

The point is - and this has been a well known effect since Keynes - that if you want to kick-start the economy, welfare is a better option than tax cuts, because the poor spend more money on domestic goods than the rich, and the poor save up less than the rich, so more money gets into the domestic demand, helping the economy. It really is textbook stuff.

 

The Neo-Conservative movement within the Republican Party amounts to a band of traitors.

 

You know, if I was a Conservative, I'd be slightly annoyed by your consistent use of the term 'Neo-Conservative'. Why not simply call a shovel a shovel and a Neo-Con a Fascist? Would make everything a lot simpler for foreigners who currently have a hard time telling the legitimate - if unappealing - Conservative politicians from the totalitarian Fascist politicians.

 

I'd like to see figures comparing how much total (tax plus dental, medical, education etc..) US people pay for comparable services.

 

Such a figure would be nice indeed. I don't have such a statistic in its entirety, but I do know that your average American spends more money on the same Health Care service than your average Dane (Danish hospitals recieve funding from the government - and constantly complain about lack thereof ). This, however, has to do with the utterly outrageous insurance policies American docs have to pay to guard against bankrupcy as a consequence of a single accident, and thus has less to do with the structure of American Health Care than the American habit of suing anyone for anything... and probably win, or at least get a settlement.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Your problem entirely.

 

I never said it wasn't.

 

I'm wondering as well... Why people whatch a crap sender like that.

 

FNC is not a crap sender. If you want an example of one look at CNN.

 

 

You know, where I come from education is free... All the way from pre-school to University (well, you have to buy your own books and stuff, but that's it).

 

Well, that pretty much applies to the US too except for college as college is premium education, not elementary and middle school/junior high. So... the fact that education where you're from comes free doesn't really matter as this is the US...

 

Punish??? Punish? I'm positive I didn't read that right.

 

That's right you read it. From the way everyone is saying "let's take away every single penny from the rich to support the poor," it does sound like punishing them.

 

I'd think that spending more on defence would be overkill in every sense of the word.

 

I never said we should spend more on our military/defense, I actually said we shouldn't minimize the funds toward it either.

[rccar328]

Punish??? Punish? I'm positive I didn't read that right.

Well, at its core, a tax is a punishment or deterrent.

For example, the tobacco tax is supposed to be a deterrent to people buying tobacco producs.

The gas tax is a punishment for buying gas and "ruining the environment"

et cetera.

 

Likewise, a property tax is a penalty for owning property, and an income tax is a penalty for earning income.

 

And the issue with taxing corporations stems from that.

 

If a corporation is taxed in the US, it will be more likely to move its operations overseas, to someplace where it will not be taxed as much.

 

That's just the way it works.

The point is - and this has been a well known effect since Keynes - that if you want to kick-start the economy, welfare is a better option than tax cuts, because the poor spend more money on domestic goods than the rich, and the poor save up less than the rich, so more money gets into the domestic demand, helping the economy.

But the point of tax cuts is to get businesses to expand, thus creating more jobs (which we are now seeing happen in America), thus creating more taxpayers, thus creating more tax revenue. It's not instant gratification - it takes time to work, but it is working!

 

 

 

And on a different note, I'm getting tired of Europeans complaining about American conservatives speaking out against American liberals - let's face it, American left-of-left liberals like John Kerry want America to move toward a socialistic society. It may not be as liberal or as socialistic as wherever you live, but that doesn't matter. American conservatives don't want to move toward socialism or communism. And that is exactly where the American liberal party in America would like to take us.

 

 

And finally, check out the oil-for-food thread, and remember that John Kerry wants to hand over control of the US military to this same organization.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Well, at its core, a tax is a punishment or deterrent.

 

And here I always thought it was a source of income for a government.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

and remember that John Kerry wants to hand over control of the US military to this same organization.

 

Thats a false statement. I thought you were above such nonsense. If you can source this assumption with empirical data, I'll be willing to agree with you, but I have hard time believing that Kerry plans to offer command positions to UN staff.

 

Perhaps you are confusing the plan to involve the United Nations in the nation building of a devastated Iraq, thus easing the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Involving UN peacekeeping forces for security would allow many of my friends to come home... as well as remove some of the perception that the Iraqi people have of U.S. colonialism/expansionism.

 

Simply making anti-Kerry statements for the sake of being anti-Kerry is different than the accusation you made in the past of "Bush-bashing?"