Why should I vote for Kerry? [Archive]

Skookum

09-15-2004, 12:55 PM

Sheesh this looks pretty pathetic.

Labor laws have been passed that i highly disagree with, Kerry is a backer of Unions and will repeal laws that stifle the working mans woe's of trying to make a decent living. This effects all of the people who get on this monkey and complain about how much our job sucks.....
Kerry will tax the rich taking the burden off the deficit and stabilize the economy so important tax funded organizations don't get cut like CPS. There are tons of kids being lost to society because the funds are nonexistant now.
Kerry will put more money on the borders to the south. Right now federal money is being put towards the border up here to Canada. Well that stops alot of BC bud from coming in, but at the Mexican border, illegal aliens are coming in in droves. Big security breach for terrorism there,but what the hell they drive down cost of labor as they flood the menial job market, and send their money back to Mexico or Honduras or wherever. You want a raise pal forget about it, it's not coming with this current administration. But you better believe business is getting a new boat. Woo hoo party time if you're "IN".
Essentially Kerry will tax to have more money to help out domestic policy.
i have no confidence of the current administration cares of the american people. If you noticed in his acceptance speech at the republican convention he was very bland speaking of any kind of domestic policy, but when he started about his rant on the war in iraq he became very passionate. He doesn't care about his fumblings because he really doesn't honestly believe he has failed at his job.
Now the common belief is that Kerry shot himself in the foot in Nam how can he lead this country? i personally think anyone who's ever served has a better idea than anyone the costs of war. The character assassination that went on was utterly irresponsible, the dude went into war when he had the choice not to. period.....
I don't think Kerry will take the stance of lobbing missiles in a country like Clinton and thinking that will solve the problem. He'll refocus the aggression where it's needed, at terrorists. We're stuck with our imperialistic aggressive move in Iraq, only in 10 years will most everyone in America say "crap we sure lost a whole hell of a lot for nothing". Just like Nam.... Why not have someone in there that's been to the show and knows the deal, regardless of if you hate what he did after the war. At least he went.
Kerry will also repeal laws that are a negative on the environment, if you look at business's track record you'll see why this is important. i work for construction companies that if they could dump roofing tear off into a lake to save a buck they would, now think of that on a more global scale.
i could go on and on.... The thing about it is there are way different priorities on the federal, state, and county level. There are democrats here in the state of Washington who need to be replaced by republicans and/or libertarians. Because the state is different than the concerns of a nation as a whole. And the democrats are sucking here in a big way, as far as changing laws on unemployment, spending, and voting.
So i don't follow people blindly because of party and ignore the failings of government like N8. It's the peoples responsibility to hold people in government accountable ESPECIALLY when they absolutely refuse to hold themselves accountable like the current administration. The government FOR the people BY the people.....

Slugman

09-15-2004, 02:15 PM

So you have no reason to vote for Kerry other than hating Bush?
Nope. And I do not HATE Bush, just his policies and lies.

This is what I wanted to avoid with this thread.
Too bad. :nuts: If you post something in a public forum you're gonna get any answer 'the public' wants to give ya.

EVERYONE knows everything you just mentioned. Its been burned into our brains at this point.
Then why does any positive points about Kerry matter? I've always seen elections as the choice between 2 evils... and I try to pick the lesser evil.

I'm still waiting for the candidate that does not make me feel this way.

I want to know Why I should vote for Kerry NOT why I should vote against Bush.
Becasue he isn't Bush, that's best reason I can think of.

$tinkle

09-15-2004, 03:42 PM

'cause he has various plans, all outlined in this ChooseOrLose interview:
dailyrecycler.typepad.com/blog/files/mtv_kerry_interview.WMV

Skookum

09-15-2004, 03:59 PM

So, you'll be cool when the country votes Mr. Bush back in for 4 mo' years?

:)
Sure but he's not what you build him up to be, even you have to realize that. it'll be great to see how delapidated the world is and see you what kind of spoon fed retardican rhetoric you spew out to protect yourself from future critisism. All administrations make mistakes, this administration is dangerous because they don't correct them, they justify them.
Put in someone like McCain and i'd be happy to support the Republican ticket. But like i say, let's wait and see the debates......

Changleen

09-16-2004, 02:49 AM

So Drift1492, Did you actually read and digest any of those links or did you just wait until someone mentioned Bush and then had a go at them, content that you are now morally obliged to vote Bush as stupid Kerry supporters just hate bush and are weak flip floppers?

zod

09-16-2004, 07:52 AM

Kerry is a backer of Unions......

Kerry will tax the rich taking the burden off the deficit and stabilize the economy......

Two of the major reasons I won't be voting for Kerry :nopity:

Tenchiro

09-16-2004, 09:22 AM

Two of the major reasons I won't be voting for Kerry :nopity:

I know what you mean, I wish he would adopt a "burn out the rich" platform.

:oink:

drift1492

09-16-2004, 09:48 AM

Yes I read them, but I'm not here to debate. I'm just curious to see which Kerry supporters actually know someything about the issues, and which ones are just voting against Bush.

So Drift1492, Did you actually read and digest any of those links or did you just wait until someone mentioned Bush and then had a go at them, content that you are now morally obliged to vote Bush as stupid Kerry supporters just hate bush and are weak flip floppers?

Hawkeye

09-16-2004, 10:09 AM

The majority are just voting against Bush. Which is pretty sad.

When the DNC kids where here in Chicago spewing vote for Kerry stuff their main comment to get you to listen was "Help get Bush out of office"

That's just the wrong way to go about earning my vote.

$tinkle

09-16-2004, 10:13 AM

reason #38:

Cause his wife likes naked kids: "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry
washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25117-2004Sep16.html)

syadasti

09-16-2004, 10:19 AM

Yes I read them, but I'm not here to debate. I'm just curious to see which Kerry supporters actually know someything about the issues, and which ones are just voting against Bush.

Slugman already noted that Bush is a major failure on the important issues. Why would you relect someone who is a failure - its a good reason to vote against them?

Why is it that replacing an incumbent who has lied to the american people, favored big corporation over people and the enviroment, destroyed relations with the international community, blown a huge surplus to the point of having the biggest deficit, and uses religon to manipulate people not valid reasons to replace him?

$tinkle

09-16-2004, 10:33 AM

reason #39:

Cuz you can't vote against him.

DETROIT -- John Kerry yesterday said he now can see no reason why the United States went to war in Iraq, yet added that he still stands by his vote to authorize the war. anti-war? he's your man!
pro-war? he's your man, too!

he goes on..."I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable," he told Mr. Imus, saying his position "can't be clearer." indeed! :confused:

washtimes.com (http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040916-123005-6877r)

ohio

09-16-2004, 10:41 AM

Yes I read them, but I'm not here to debate. I'm just curious to see which Kerry supporters actually know someything about the issues, and which ones are just voting against Bush.

Why? What's your goal? What do you hope to prove or disprove?

I get so tired of these rhetorical posts. No one is fished in by them. We all know you're a Bush supporter, and that you hope to point out to swing voters that Kerry has no platform and people only support him because they hate Bush. The fact of the matter is that Kerry DOES have a platform, but if you hear the RNC claim that he doesn't enough times you believe them. The other fact of the matter is that for ~40% of the country Kerry's platform could be "I plan to practice banjo for 4 years" and they'd still vote for him because they want Bush out that badly.

So the answer to the question you're (for whatever reason) afraid to ask is, yes Kerry has a platform, but no most people voting for him don't know it. As many others have pointed out, it really doesn't matter. Disliking the incumbent is a perfectly good reason to vote against him. That's the way politics work... e.g. French revolution (I pick France because I know N8 is a huge Francophile) was because the people hated the King, not because they were a big fan of whoever might step in as executive leader afterwords.

$tinkle

09-16-2004, 11:02 AM

We all know you're a Bush supporter, and that you hope to point out to swing voters that Kerry has no platform and people only support him because they hate Bush.
i disagree with the premise of a "swing voter". If (as you say) the uninformed are voting for kerry (read: against bush), then what's there to swing?The fact of the matter is that Kerry DOES have a platform, but if you hear the RNC claim that he doesn't enough times you believe them. not so fast john kerry. Is the RNC that "craftily" splices soundbites out of context to frame him as a flip-flopper, or is it the actual (& rare) senate votes chronicled? Do you also believe it's the DNC that's bringing up vietnam? The other fact of the matter is that for ~40% of the country Kerry's platform could be "I plan to practice banjo for 4 years" and they'd still vote for him because they want Bush out that badly.on this, we agree.So the answer to the question you're (for whatever reason) afraid to ask is, yes Kerry has a platform, but no most people voting for him don't know it. and who's fault is that? who should you really be pissed at? from previous link, previous post: "I asked him a number of questions about Iraq, and I can't tell you what he said," Mr. Imus said after Mr. Kerry hung up.
French revolution (I pick France because I know N8 is a huge Francophile) was because the people hated the King, not because they were a big fan of whoever might step in as executive leader afterwords.what's that saying? "You get the government you deserve"

Skookum

09-16-2004, 01:47 PM

Two of the major reasons I won't be voting for Kerry :nopity:
What's wrong with having a middle class? The ONLY reason there ever was a middle class is because of unions.

reason #38:

Cause his wife likes naked kids:
What has Bush brought to the table in the last four years? And let's not hear all the Kerry bashing, if you can.....

zod

09-16-2004, 01:54 PM

What's wrong with having a middle class? The ONLY reason there ever was a middle class is because of unions.

Load of crap about the Middle Class, I'm in the bracket and I don't have a Union "protecting" my intrest........

All Unions do is put companies out of business by making demands beyond the curve of capitolism, then companies go bankrupt, like US Air. All thanks to Unions.

Skookum

09-16-2004, 01:58 PM

Tenchiro

09-16-2004, 02:19 PM

Focking unions sunk Enron too!

drift1492

09-16-2004, 02:33 PM

Why? What's your goal? What do you hope to prove or disprove?

I get so tired of these rhetorical posts. No one is fished in by them. We all know you're a Bush supporter, and that you hope to point out to swing voters that Kerry has no platform and people only support him because they hate Bush. The fact of the matter is that Kerry DOES have a platform, but if you hear the RNC claim that he doesn't enough times you believe them. The other fact of the matter is that for ~40% of the country Kerry's platform could be "I plan to practice banjo for 4 years" and they'd still vote for him because they want Bush out that badly.

So the answer to the question you're (for whatever reason) afraid to ask is, yes Kerry has a platform, but no most people voting for him don't know it. As many others have pointed out, it really doesn't matter. Disliking the incumbent is a perfectly good reason to vote against him. That's the way politics work... e.g. French revolution (I pick France because I know N8 is a huge Francophile) was because the people hated the King, not because they were a big fan of whoever might step in as executive leader afterwords.

I had no ulterior motives. It was not a rhetorical question either. I merely asked the question because I do KNOW what Bush has done wrong and would consider myself one of those "swinger voters". I do know a lot about what Kerry has planned out, but was interested to see if anyone knew something or had a link to some more info. I appreciate those of you who made an attempt to answer my question.

$tinkle

09-16-2004, 03:27 PM

What has Bush brought to the table in the last four years? And let's not hear all the Kerry bashing, if you can.....
his hawkishness is a necessity these days
he doesn't seek the approval of other nations to protect us
tax cuts
school vouchers
decisive
pro-tort reform
pro-life (excepting for the death penalty)
wants to tap anwar like a $20 whore

Andyman_1970

09-16-2004, 03:40 PM

All Unions do is put companies out of business by making demands beyond the curve of capitolism, then companies go bankrupt, like US Air. All thanks to Unions.

After seeing the gross ineffectiveness of union labor first hand, it is easy to see how they have brought down a low margin business like an airline.

Skookum

09-16-2004, 03:54 PM

his hawkishness is a necessity these days
he doesn't seek the approval of other nations to protect us

Oh yah well how come China told us to chill out of talking about N. Korea?
And do we have the funds and chase the WMD's that probably got moved to Syria? or how about the supposed nukes in Iran? If we wanna keep doing what we're doing we have to get money from somewhere, guess who's gonna get more influence cough cough Colin Powel cough cough. Colin Powell's job is to ask for permission if any of you didn't know....

tax cuts

Poop in the shoe, i saved $200 frikkin bucks in a year from Bushy.... Big frikkin deal, tax issues are usually out of control on the state level. It's a non issue on the federal level, except knowing that rich assholes are buying a new boat at the expense of alot of programs that will enrich the american community, and not to even go into the deficit.

school vouchers

Hooray! He got one! Great go to school and get smart while our jobs get exported to India. Better learn frikkin Chinese while Bushy pays your tuition....

decisive

that's a perception not a reality.

pro-tort reform

pro tort is that like Pop Tarts? Hey if strawberry is involved i'll have to concede this as a second positive.

pro-life (excepting for the death penalty)

Let's get a number on how many abortions took place during his watch.
Nah never mind...
Come to think of it, let's count this as a positive as well....i think i agree with pro-life for the simple fact all the dumb born-agains are starting to outnumber responsible folk out of simple breeding practices....

wants to tap anwar like a $20 whore
uhhh.............

yah......

Skookum

09-16-2004, 03:57 PM

After seeing the gross ineffectiveness of union labor first hand, it is easy to see how they have brought down a low margin business like an airline.
i've worked non union and union there is no difference except pay and benefits. i suppose your gonna tell me unions don't help F.D.N.Y. and that they are guilty of gross ineffectiveness.....

Silver

09-16-2004, 04:04 PM

Load of crap about the Middle Class, I'm in the bracket and I don't have a Union "protecting" my intrest........

All Unions do is put companies out of business by making demands beyond the curve of capitolism, then companies go bankrupt, like US Air. All thanks to Unions.

Do unions distort labor curves? Yes. Are those curves undistorted by the employer on the other side? Oh yeah...

You do realize all those fancy curves from Econ 101 assume that the market is not regulated, and that decisions aren't made under duress (like, for example, working without safety gear because you want to feed your family, and there is no other job that doesn't require you to pick up and move across the country, which you can't afford to do.)

The labor unions are shrinking in influence every single day, and yet they still happen to be the reason that businesses are failing? It's going to suck when labor unions don't really exist anymore (except of course for professional unions, like the AMA, lawyers, CPA associations and the like, but those aren't welfare hungry blue collar workers, so they get a free ride from Republicans) because then you won't have a simple, easy, and usually wrong explanation to fall back on.

Silver

09-16-2004, 04:05 PM

i've worked non union and union there is no difference except pay and benefits. i suppose your gonna tell me unions don't help F.D.N.Y. and that they are guilty of gross ineffectiveness.....

Fire Departments need to be done away with anyways. That's socialized fire protection, and I'm getting tired of my tax dollars being funneled to help other people out. If they want fire protection, let the market take care of it.

Silver

09-16-2004, 04:07 PM

Hooray! He got one! Great go to school and get smart while our jobs get exported to India. Better learn frikkin Chinese while Bushy pays your tuition....

Except that they'll laugh at you in China when you apply to work at a biotech firm with no understanding of biology because you were taught that the Lord created everything in six days and then had to take a rest...

Skookum

09-16-2004, 04:11 PM

Fire Departments need to be done away with anyways. That's socialized fire protection, and I'm getting tired of my tax dollars being funneled to help other people out. If they want fire protection, let the market take care of it.
You're either being too smart or.......

Silver

09-16-2004, 04:13 PM

You're either being too smart or.......

Police departments as well. I'm sitting here and sending money to people like N8 so they don't have to pay for their own security and he's getting a free ride off of me! It's state sponsored stealing, that's what it is.

Westy

09-16-2004, 04:15 PM

Police departments as well. I'm sitting here and sending money to people like N8 so they don't have to pay for their own security and he's getting a free ride off of me! It's state sponsored stealing, that's what it is.

Don't even get me started about traffic lights. Just pissing away my money for people who are too lazy to play real life high speed Frogger.

Skookum

09-16-2004, 04:25 PM

the Lord created everything in six days and then had to take a rest...
God believes in Unions, people who are anti union are people that would have God work on the seventh day without overtime pay.....

$tinkle

09-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Oh yah well how come China told us to chill out of talking about N. Korea?no idear - let's see what madeliene albright had to sayRussert: But didn't North Korea develop a nuclear bomb on Bill Clinton's watch?

Albright: No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating. And the reason that you have arms control agreements is you don't make them with your friends, you make them with your enemies. And it's the process that is required to hold countries accountable. The worst part that has happened under the agreed framework, there was these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen. Those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons, up to six to eight now, we're not really clear. But in this period of time when there has not enough action been taken, I think that the threat from North Korea has increased.

x-script september 12th Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981265/)
And do we have the funds and chase the WMD's that probably got moved to Syria? or how about the supposed nukes in Iran? wrong; we'll shrewdly lie in wait for those pesky WMDs to come to usColin Powell's job is to ask for permission if any of you didn't know....i see him as an advisor, not a policy maker....except knowing that rich assholes are buying a new boat at the expense of alot of programs that will enrich the american community, and not to even go into the deficit.huh? perhaps you'd like it better if they got incorporated offshore, or better yet, raise the tax even further on luxury items such that they can't be built here & you've missed out on 2 sources for taxes. It's not the upper class folks who:
- do security for the ship yard
- transport the materials
- do brochures/marketing
- carpet these vessels
- design & build the engines
these are actual jobs that get outsourced when the gov't tries (& fails) to reap disproportionate taxes from this source.Hooray! He got one! Great go to school and get smart while our jobs get exported to India. Better learn frikkin Chinese while Bushy pays your tuition....whatever it takes to motivate our fat, lazy, entitlement-minded butts.that's a perception not a reality.perception IS realityi think i agree with pro-life for the simple fact all the dumb born-agains are starting to outnumber responsible folk out of simple breeding practices...."dumb born-agains"? Nice. Nothing like a little civil-rights flaming to get credibility.

forgot to add to list: ... understands the difference (& success rate) between adult stem-cell vs embryonic stem-cell research

Skookum

09-16-2004, 04:50 PM

no idear - let's see what madeliene albright had to say, we'll shrewdly lie in wait for those pesky WMDs to come to us

So Bush's decisiveness of non action has done wonders in this case we can agree.
]
i see him as an advisor, not a policy maker.huh?
Correct let me clarify my point. He's got a thankless task now since i believe the Bush administration is going to be sending him on tons of trips in the future asking for help that's going to fall on deaf ears. The price of Bush's so called decisiveness.
perhaps you'd like it better if they got incorporated offshore, or better yet, raise the tax even further on luxury items such that they can't be built here & you've missed out on 2 sources for taxes. It's not the upper class folks who:
- do security for the ship yard
- transport the materials
- do brochures/marketing
- carpet these vessels
- design & build the engines
these are actual jobs that get outsourced when the gov't tries (& fails) to reap disproportionate taxes from this source.
Ok then why are the jobs still leaving if this is the absolute truth?
whatever it takes to motivate our fat, lazy, entitlement-minded butts.perception IS reality"dumb born-agains"? Nice. Nothing like a little civil-rights flaming to get credibility.

[/list]
i guess we'll both have to improve our flawed general perceptions of our nation......

Skookum

09-16-2004, 04:53 PM

Ahhhh....

Classic $tinkle...

:)
What are you cheering about, i only found 3 out of 8 of his examples of Bush success valid and i'm thinking of discounting the Pop Tart one.....

zod

09-16-2004, 05:08 PM

Poop in the shoe, i saved $200 frikkin bucks in a year from Bushy.... Big frikkin deal, tax issues are usually out of control on the state level. It's a non issue on the federal level, except knowing that rich assholes are buying a new boat at the expense of alot of programs that will enrich the american community, and not to even go into the deficit.

Dude, what are you smoking and can I have a hit?? Tax issues not out of control on the federal level?? I work over 3 months out of the year to pay my Federal Taxes and about 3 weeks out of the year to pay my State Taxes now you tell me which is out of control?

What's up with people that aren't wealthy as they want to be having some beef against rich people. They pay more taxes than you net wise, they pay more taxes then you percentage wise (which they shouldn't have to) and you still wanna cry about how the rich "assholes" get to buy a boat. Boo f&ckin' Hoo, they made their money and you don't think they should be able to spend it? The top 20% of income earners in this country already pay over 70% of our total Federal Income Taxes........you think they should pay more? I think it's pretty nice that they carry this country as much as they already do and I don't think they should be punished for being "rich."

EVERYBODY got a tax cut, so you only got $200, I got about $2000 and it did make a difference, people that make more than you and I got even more, AND RIGHTFULLY SO b/c they make more. Percentage wise their cut was still less than yours. BTW, if you don't want your tax cut and it didn't make a difference you can give it back to the FEDS, they will gladly take it........but I'm sure you won't b/c the "rich" should carry this country's tax burden, us groundlings should get a free ride. :nopity:

Silver

09-16-2004, 05:37 PM

Zod, are you making the case that an American household with a gross income of $30,000 a year gets the same benefits from living in America that a household with a gross income of a million or more gets?

Please stop talking about economics. Using Bush's talking points doesn't make you look smart. You do realize that Federal Income tax isn't the same as payroll tax, right? The rich do not pay more as a percentage than the middle class does, when you account for all taxes (payroll, sales, fees, etc.)

Skookum

09-16-2004, 05:50 PM

EVERYBODY got a tax cut, so you only got $200, I got about $2000 and it did make a difference, people that make more than you and I got even more, AND RIGHTFULLY SO b/c they make more. Percentage wise their cut was still less than yours. BTW, if you don't want your tax cut and it didn't make a difference you can give it back to the FEDS, they will gladly take it........but I'm sure you won't b/c the "rich" should carry this country's tax burden, us groundlings should get a free ride. :nopity:
I'm glad you care so much about the rich they really need your support and they care about you too.

hmmm i ultimately paid $4991 last year on federal income taxes. and what did i get on my investment from the federal govt.? A recession, outsourcing, blundered misguided war, unfair work laws, flood gates on illegals coming up from Mexico wide open. I say i got jipped and want my money back, but boo hoo for me it don't work that way. Look i tell you what, there are rich people out there that help out Seattle in any administration and flourish in their business practices with innovativion and generous opportunities through job creation within the community. His name is Paul Allen and i owe having both of my mt. bikes due to him, and if he was here right now i'd kiss his big fat nerdy ass. But don't tell me making him carry more of a tax burden is going to destroy our economy is ridiculous. He created way more opportunity for Seattlelites during the Clinton administration EMP/Seahawks Stadium/Union Station/countless new construction. Than during Bush's administration Biotech.........
I hear people on the tv constantly berrating the american worker as being uneducated and lazy. Who's sending out the sob story and excuses here? Boo hoo the american worker sucks we have to go overseas to make more profit (here's some more money Mr. Bush remember us when we decide to move out of town). When is the big business and going to be held responsible for drinking pure capitilism without a chaser of American pride.

fatpandas

09-16-2004, 05:53 PM

What's wrong with having a middle class? The ONLY reason there ever was a middle class is because of unions.

i thought the middle class came from advancements in agricultural technology, which allowed for the emergence of mercantalism and artisans.

"without the wheel there would be no capitalism."

Silver

09-16-2004, 05:56 PM

Actually, the American worker works more hours than any other worker in a first world country. We're not quite as productive per hour, but we work more.

Goddamn lazy bums...

Skookum

09-16-2004, 06:01 PM

i thought the middle class came from advancements in agricultural technology, which allowed for the emergence of mercantalism and artisans.

"without the wheel there would be no capitalism."
Stop exposing my lack of qualifications for making such a statement. :mad: ;)
i'm workin *on* a high school education here for fukks sake...... :p

edit *with
as you can see..... :D

Skookum

09-16-2004, 06:04 PM

Actually, the American worker works more hours than any other worker in a first world country. We're not quite as productive per hour, but we work more.

Goddamn lazy bums...
Yah i just have to laugh at the comments of being fat and lazy, i've worked on a roof with temperatures on the average of 80 degrees 7 days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day. Did it for the money but we also did it to beat a deadline and save our company money. But man do that for a month you go home, shower, grab a bite to eat, then you wake up with your half eaten meal and your alarm so you can go out and do it again for the day.....

ALEXIS_DH

09-16-2004, 07:15 PM

Zod, are you making the case that an American household with a gross income of $30,000 a year gets the same benefits from living in America that a household with a gross income of a million or more gets?

AWESOME DUDE!!!!!!!!. :thumb:

truly, that is the reason why the more you make the more % you gotta pay.

if you evaluate the benefits corporations, and big businesses (like 500 or more employees, not small business owner 2% wannabes), and think about the cost they are for society and the gvmt in terms, of judges, tax analysis, wars the US wages for them, litigation in foreign courts (yup, the US gvmt pays to open them markets, think the commingTLC), welfare when they pay rock bottom wages and the gvmt has to subsidize the payroll of their employees (because welfare IS a subsidy on THE EMPLOYER, not the employee working 40hrs a week), the costs on society of the tariffs that are against "free trade", and costs society money for the sake of a few non-competitive industrials and farmers not loosing markets.
and etc, etc, etc....

they cost a lot more to the gvmt, than the average joe.

zod

09-17-2004, 07:49 AM

You do realize that Federal Income tax isn't the same as payroll tax, right? The rich do not pay more as a percentage than the middle class does, when you account for all taxes (payroll, sales, fees, etc.)

Sure they don't pay more in payroll taxes percentage wise, did I say that they did? That is unless you own your own business, which a large percentage of people over the $1 million dollar line do. Then you pay double in payroll that a non-self employed does. I have several family members that own businesses(some small, some pretty large) and make over a million a year and when it's all said and done over half of their income goes to taxes. But you don't have to make over a million to get hit like this. I have another family memeber that owns his own business and makes between 300K-500K a year, he also pays over 50% in taxes. Do we really wanna tax these people more than they already pay? They're working 6 months out of the year to pay as it is. In the mean time they are providing jobs for a fair amount of people, why do we want to drive them to a point where it isn't worth keeping their business running? And people wonder why big companies are moving over seas..........small business would follw suit if it were possible. Small business ownership is the heart and soul of the American dream for many and it does wonders for the US economy, it is how the large percentage of self-made millionaires are created. They work hard to get to that point, they started from dirt, and when they work their knuckles to the bone and succeed they shouldn't be punished. Many like to paint a picture of millionaires as undeserving scum who got some family inheritance that lounge around living off the fat of the land and for the most part that just isn't true.

Zod, are you making the case that an American household with a gross income of $30,000 a year gets the same benefits from living in America that a household with a gross income of a million or more gets?

It's not about benefits, if it were then I should get food stamps even though I make descent money, is it fair that I don't get food stamp when others do?(no I don't really think I should get food stamps) We are not an entitlement country......if you want that then move to The Netherlands. We are an equal opportunity country, of course there will always be a gap in opportunity b/c of money/environment and the government tries to lessen that gap but it will always exist to some extent. Yet when people work hard and strive and succeed should they then take on the tax burden for all simply b/c they took inititive that others did not?
My personal stance (remember it's my opinion so don't get your man panties in a whad) is that all American's EQUALLY own the responsibility of funding this country. We all live here, it belongs to each of us equally. Be it through a flat tax (with a tax free amount thrown on the front for the poverty crowd) or a national sales tax, or whatever. But I guess I just don't wanna throw the burden on the "rich man". BTW, the "rich" the Democrats like to raise taxes on is typically family's making more than 40K a year.....big money huh?

hmmm i ultimately paid $4991 last year on federal income taxes. and what did i get on my investment from the federal govt.? A recession, outsourcing, blundered misguided war, unfair work laws, flood gates on illegals coming up from Mexico wide open. I say i got jipped and want my money back, but boo hoo for me it don't work that way.

You don't get to cry about it, you get to vote, that is if you're old enough?

Look i tell you what, there are rich people out there that help out Seattle in any administration and flourish in their business practices with innovativion and generous opportunities through job creation within the community. His name is Paul Allen and i owe having both of my mt. bikes due to him, and if he was here right now i'd kiss his big fat nerdy ass. But don't tell me making him carry more of a tax burden is going to destroy our economy is ridiculous.

You see a lot of bike frames made in the US these days? I bet about 90% of the people on this board have a frame that was welded in Asia. Is that good for our economy?

I hear people on the tv constantly berrating the american worker as being uneducated and lazy. Who's sending out the sob story and excuses here? Boo hoo the american worker sucks we have to go overseas to make more profit (here's some more money Mr. Bush remember us when we decide to move out of town). When is the big business and going to be held responsible for drinking pure capitilism without a chaser of American pride.

We're getting our asses beat by foreign manufactures, do we fix that through rediculous tariffs on imports?? I don't know, doesn't seem like that does much to truly fix the issue. It would make more sense to me to give corporations that reside in the US huge tax breaks, give foreign businesses incentative to move here, regain that tax cut through a positive influx in American workers. Here's a nice little analogy...... Say I own a wall paper store and I have a bunch of old rolls of wall paper that are taking up shelf space. I want them gone, I want to MOVE INVENTORY. How do I get rid of it? Do I raise the price on the item? No I mark it down, I make it cheap and when I do that the inventory moves, business moves. Now what is it that raising taxes it supposed to do again????

Good debate though fella's........remember that unlike a lot around here that like to get hot under the collar I just like a good debate sometimes. :thumb:
I have a lot of personal family experience with people who run their own business' in this country and people that make $1 mil+ a year so I guess that is why this is a very touchy subject for me.......otherwise I'm too lazy to type this much ;)

Andyman_1970

09-17-2004, 09:17 AM

i've worked non union and union there is no difference except pay and benefits. i suppose your gonna tell me unions don't help F.D.N.Y. and that they are guilty of gross ineffectiveness.....

I've only worked in a non-union shop, however our sister company in Wichita is union, and I have spent sometime working there.

From what I have seen of the aircraft industry unions (the industry I work in) are doing a wonderful job of getting work sent overseas. In such a low profit margin industry and the inherit inefficiencies of that labor (in the industries I have seen) tend to be a handicap to the health of the business rather than an asset.

From what I have seen in the automotive industry, a union forklift driver get's paid $20 an hour to unload one dock and one dock only, if there are no trucks at his dock he doesn't have to do anything (and yet gets paid). This forklift driver gets a month and a half off (fully paid) in the summer for retooling for next years models (this is above and beyond the generous vacation policy). Then at the end of the year, that same forklift driver gets anywhere from a $8k to $15k bonus. This does not include the discounts on car purchases (at cost), pension, stuff like that. And we wonder why cars cost as much as they do????

fluff

09-17-2004, 09:25 AM

I've only worked in a non-union shop, however our sister company in Wichita is union, and I have spent sometime working there.

From what I have seen of the aircraft industry unions (the industry I work in) are doing a wonderful job of getting work sent overseas. In such a low profit margin industry and the inherit inefficiencies of that labor (in the industries I have seen) tend to be a handicap to the health of the business rather than an asset.

From what I have seen in the automotive industry, a union forklift driver get's paid $20 an hour to unload one dock and one dock only, if there are no trucks at his dock he doesn't have to do anything (and yet gets paid). This forklift driver gets a month and a half off (fully paid) in the summer for retooling for next years models (this is above and beyond the generous vacation policy). Then at the end of the year, that same forklift driver gets anywhere from a $8k to $15k bonus. This does not include the discounts on car purchases (at cost), pension, stuff like that. And we wonder why cars cost as much as they do????

Andy,

I have idea if you can get the info but to convince me that it's the unions' fault I'd like to see the following:

Average union member's remuneration, total & hourly rate
Average management's remuneration, total & hourly rate
Average director's remuneration, total & hourly rate (including stock bonus)
The rate of increase of all of the above for the last 8 yearss (in % terms)

Otherwise it's just conjecture & anecdotal.

fluff

09-17-2004, 09:37 AM

Small business ownership is the heart and soul of the American dream for many and it does wonders for the US economy, it is how the large percentage of self-made millionaires are created. They work hard to get to that point, they started from dirt, and when they work their knuckles to the bone and succeed they shouldn't be punished. Many like to paint a picture of millionaires as undeserving scum who got some family inheritance that lounge around living off the fat of the land and for the most part that just isn't true.

Earned or inherited? Is the USA still the land of opportunity? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0802/p17s01-wmgn.html)

Maybe they should give something back after all...

Repeat after me; 'Greed is good', yeah!

Andyman_1970

09-17-2004, 09:47 AM

Andy,

I have idea if you can get the info but to convince me that it's the unions' fault I'd like to see the following:

Average union member's remuneration, total & hourly rate
Average management's remuneration, total & hourly rate
Average director's remuneration, total & hourly rate (including stock bonus)
The rate of increase of all of the above for the last 8 yearss (in % terms)

I would not say that unions are the only reason our company is in a mess, we freely admit to major management screw ups in the last 10 years that got us where we are today. I would argue however that our union has a direct impact on the wok we (the aircraft industry) are outsourcing.

I can't speak for the auto industry (that "anecdote" I provided was a guy I went to school with who was the forklift driver in question) but I'll see if I can gather anything here.

Otherwise it's just conjecture & anecdotal.

And that's different from everyone else's positions..............:rolleyes: LOL

fluff

09-17-2004, 09:53 AM

direct impact on the wok we (the aircraft industry) are outsourcing.

Damn that Chinese cookware.

And that's different from everyone else's positions..............:rolleyes: LOL
Hey, I'm trying, are you?

Silver

09-17-2004, 10:53 AM

Sure they don't pay more in payroll taxes percentage wise, did I say that they did?

No, you got very indignant about the rich being taxed. I was merely pointing out that if you're going to talk about tax burdens, including the entire burden is usually a good thing to do, and it changes the picture by quite a bit.

We are an equal opportunity country, of course there will always be a gap in opportunity b/c of money/environment and the government tries to lessen that gap but it will always exist to some extent. Yet when people work hard and strive and succeed should they then take on the tax burden for all simply b/c they took inititive that others did not?
My personal stance (remember it's my opinion so don't get your man panties in a whad) is that all American's EQUALLY own the responsibility of funding this country.

If we all should equally fund the country, then we damn well better have a direct democracy. Personally, I'm getting tired of paying for neo conservative wet dreams, and I want to be able to drink a Coke that tastes like it does in the rest of the world (bonus points if you can figure out who sugar tariffs help...)

Making a good living doesn't mean that all of a sudden you shouldn't have to pay either. A question for you: What is a reasonable amount of tax to pay for a wealthy person? Because it appears to me that as soon as the marginal tax rate rises above approximately 0%, the bitching starts about how they are getting gouged and the poor aren't pulling their weight...

$tinkle

09-17-2004, 11:15 AM

Making a good living doesn't mean that all of a sudden you shouldn't have to pay either. A question for you: What is a reasonable amount of tax to pay for a wealthy person? i certainly don't see this as reasonable, even if legal. (i think she's one of yours):TV commentator and author Arianna Huffington, who launched her campaign for California governor with criticism of "fat cats" who fail to shoulder a fair share of taxes, paid no individual state income tax and just $771 in federal taxes during the last two years, her tax returns show.

Huffington, who released her tax returns for the last two years to the Los Angeles Times, lives in an 8,000-square-foot home valued at about $7 million.

But the returns show that at least for the last two years, her income far outweighed reported losses by Christabella Inc., the private corporation she owns and uses to manage her writing and lecturing business.Because it appears to me that as soon as the marginal tax rate rises above approximately 0%, the bitching starts about how they are getting gouged and the poor aren't pulling their weight...that's mostly due to getting gouged & the poor not pulling their weight.

Jr_Bullit

09-17-2004, 11:49 AM

Personally, I'm getting tired of paying for neo conservative wet dreams, and I want to be able to drink a Coke that tastes like it does in the rest of the world (bonus points if you can figure out who sugar tariffs help...)

Or even a Snapple! I think the Corn Syrup industry is a conspiracy to make all americans fat and have weird fluctuating levels of sugar constantly in their system.

http://www.ussugar.com/pressroom/press%20kits/sugar%20trade/sugar_policy.pdf

Not only are we the 4th largest producer of Sugar, we're the largest producer of Corn and Beet derived Sugars (ugh, add on those pounds) and we're the largest importer of this product!!!

ewie

And to answer your question:
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-013es.html
Nowhere is there a larger gap between the U.S. government’s free-trade rhetoric and its protectionist practices than in the sugar program. Through preferential loan agreements and tariff-rate quotas, the U.S. government thwarts price competition to maintain an artificially high domestic price for sugar--a price that can be twice the world market price or higher.

The program benefits a small number of sugar producers, but virtually every governmental and non-governmental survey concludes that the program results in a net loss of welfare for the U.S. economy, with U.S. consumers suffering the most. Direct costs to consumers due to higher prices could be as much as $1.9 billion a year and the net welfare loss to the U.S. economy nearly $1 billion. Moreover, the U.S. government spends close to $1.68 billion a year buying and storing excess sugar to maintain those artificially high domestic prices.

U.S. sugar consumers would not be the only winners if U.S. price supports and quotas were removed. Poor nations would benefit as well. Freeing just the U.S. market would boost global demand and raise world prices by 17 percent, increasing the annual export earnings of developing nations by $1.5 billion.

America’s sugar quotas pose a threat to multilateral and regional trade negotiations. U.S. trading partners routinely and rightly point to quotas as being inconsistent with U.S. demands for more open markets abroad. The sugar program has become an obstacle to lowering foreign trade barriers to U.S. exports.

The U.S. sugar program is a classic case of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs: a very small number of sugar growers receive enormous benefits, while the costs of providing those benefits are spread across the U.S. economy, specifically to consumers and confectioners. Repealing the sugar quota program will require more vigorous leadership from the president and the many members of Congress who represent far more people who suffer from the U.S. sugar program than who benefit.

fluff

09-17-2004, 11:50 AM

i certainly don't see this as reasonable, even if legal.

I'd agree. But you didn't answer the question.

Jr_Bullit

09-17-2004, 12:03 PM

that's mostly due to getting gouged & the poor not pulling their weight.

How would you recommend the "poor" start pulling their weight? And do you have any clear parameters that make a person "poor"? (Just so we're all on the same page).

I would argue that yes, our welfare system needs revisions in order to make it more effective, and to help those who are truly needy versus those who are mooching off of it...however, then there's the "working class poor", the individuals who live in the lower income brackets for their state, are in-debt as a result of trying to get ahead, can't pay their debts off because they don't make enough, and thus end up getting more in-debt and locking themselves into the forever working class poor.
:nopity:

$tinkle

09-17-2004, 12:24 PM

actually, i need to retract.

there are no poor in this country, just lazy.

ALEXIS_DH

09-17-2004, 12:44 PM

If we all should equally fund the country, then we damn well better have a direct democracy. Personally, I'm getting tired of paying for neo conservative wet dreams, and I want to be able to drink a Coke that tastes like it does in the rest of the world (bonus points if you can figure out who sugar tariffs help...)

WORD!. the gvmt does not equally benefit everybody.

there is a cost for that protection for big capitals. that has to be funded by the big capitals themselves.

and well, i read a lot about unions, or taxes and their fault in outsourcing.
BS!

tax rates in the US, even as they are were, are extremely competetive. and cost-effective compared to the benefits and safety for capitals you get in the US there is hardly any better.

I US companies oursource, its not because there are better tax rates overseas, its because US labor is goddamn expensive. and unions do very little for that. because its not like a 20 ot 15% difference in wages.
its not unusual tenfold. so its beyond economic reasoning to keep manufacturing in the US, if you can get it done for 1/10 of the labor cost. and unions or no unions, that is not gonna make any difference.

that is the biggest single reason why shirts are made in asia, and software is now being coded in india.

ohio

09-17-2004, 01:00 PM

that's mostly due to getting gouged & the poor not pulling their weight.

first of all the poor don't have any strength to pull. You could tax them at 100% and it wouldn't make a dent in the defecit. The government has no choice but to leverage the wealthy if it hopes to have an operating budget.

second, all this crap about corporations and small businesses being double taxed is a load of crap. Their workers are feeling that double tax just as much, because if it didn't exist it would translate to income. Most (intelligent businesses) consider ALL costs of employing a worker (overhead, health, AND taxes) when pricing contract work. "I know someone who owns a business and complains a lot" is not a good argument against the tax system.

third, yes the rich (theoretically) have to pay a greater portion of their income. They (we?) NEED all those people at lower income levels for our businesses to work. We rely on them as much as they rely on us. It's a game of push and pull. If you think it's should be different, have a look around the world. Someone else has your preferred tax system. Why don't you move there? I'll tell you why. Because it sucks. The US system actually works because it's not made up by a bunch of whiney "self-made-men" sitting around wishing they had more money.

last, corporate tax breaks would lead to an influx of money to the american worker which would lead to higher tax revenues despite lower rates? nice perpetual motion machine. draw out a cash flow diagram and fill in the numbers... if your theory still holds let me know. We'll be RICH!

ohio

09-17-2004, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE=$tinkle]i disagree with the premise of a "swing voter". If (as you say) the uninformed are voting for kerry (read: against bush), then what's there to swing?
[QUOTE]

I don't know what you're trying to say, but I have a feeling you misunderstood me (I DID use too many pronouns). I didn't say the uninformed are voting for Kerry. I said many uninformed are voting for Kerry. Many are also voting for Bush (in near equal proportions). Not exactly a profound insight.

My point (which was missed) is that swing voters are generally informed or trying to inform themselves... so if someone does a good job of painting one group as "uninformed," it's a good way to capture swing voters who don't want to be associated with an uninformed group. Very effective. But based purely on spin.

$tinkle

09-17-2004, 03:08 PM

How would you recommend the "poor" start pulling their weight? And do you have any clear parameters that make a person "poor"? this guy (http://www.killsometime.com/Video/videos/Rolling-on-Dubs.wmv) is as good example for others to start pushing their weight.

Silver

09-17-2004, 04:04 PM

this guy (http://www.killsometime.com/Video/videos/Rolling-on-Dubs.wmv) is as good example for others to start pushing their weight.

That's great. Since that seems to be the critieria you need for evidence, I hereby submit George W Bush and his brother Neil, along with the Hilton sisters, as reasons for a 100% inheritance tax on the rich.

It's time those lazy, stealing, drug using jerks start earning their wealth (and I haven't even gotten to the Hilton sisters yet...)

Edit: And if they even mention that they are rugged self made men, their own wealth is immediately taxed at 200% upon their death so that we don't have to listen to their offspring tell us the same tired sh!t...

Archslater

09-17-2004, 04:28 PM

Earned or inherited? Is the USA still the land of opportunity? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0802/p17s01-wmgn.html)

Maybe they should give something back after all...

Repeat after me; 'Greed is good', yeah!

"Almost a third of the Forbes 400 richest people were born onto that list,"

Glad somebody posted that article.... I grow so tired of the "I don't think they should be punished for working hard and being rich." argument.

Skookum

09-17-2004, 04:45 PM

http://photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/144727.jpg
N8 it's getting really old you putting up pictures like this. Everyone knows that windsurf is the correct choice.... :rolleyes:

syadasti

09-17-2004, 04:54 PM

N8 it's getting really old you putting up pictures like this. Everyone knows that windsurf is the correct choice.... :rolleyes:

I thought it was read a book with children - it worked for Bush :confused:

syadasti

09-17-2004, 04:57 PM

It's time those lazy, stealing, drug using jerks start earning their wealth (and I haven't even gotten to the Hilton sisters yet...)

Did you hear about the missing dog story with Paris. She "lost" her dog and made a missing dog campaign/reward/etc... Her maid called her eventually and told her she left the dog with her :D

Skookum

09-17-2004, 06:10 PM

I would not say that unions are the only reason our company is in a mess, we freely admit to major management screw ups in the last 10 years that got us where we are today. I would argue however that our union has a direct impact on the wok we (the aircraft industry) are outsourcing.

Unions go on a contract that is negotiated. Our Union actually put a price freeze on our labor cost (no raise) for the next three years to enable our Union Shops to remain competive. The difference is in the union you get to negotiate as a whole. Alot of other construction trades did get a raise... If things go well in the next 3 years our shops will benefit (we won't in terms of pay) but it's our intention to work and keep busy. I'm not going to defend unions abroad and i'm not even going to mention professional sports, sickening. But we signed the contract we agree with and move on, if either party didn't want to sign then they have no one to blame but theirselves.
Unions are established to protect the worker from dangerous work conditions, and to establish a fair level of pay. That's it and all, if there are conditions in a contract that enable a worker to pick his nose and get paid well then the companies shouldnt have signed the dotted line.
I know there's plenty of non union workers on this forum right now getting paid to surf the monkey. You better believe when i'm at work it's not me..... Although that would be awesome....