Author Topic: Kerry... why?  (Read 1649 times)

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Kerry... why?
« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2004, 10:20:29 AM »
We have a leader who does what he says, the economy is booming, job being created, low unemployment, low tax rates, low interest rates, low inflation, Iraq winding down, gas prices going down.....

What does Kerry offer that we don't have? Kerry has tried to use almost every issue listed above and tell us how terrible things are. He's funny actually

Why would a voter risk a slimey fish like Kerry when everything is going forward very well now? Answer is that they wont and Kerry is going to lose big.

Offline TheDudeDVant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
Kerry... why?
« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2004, 10:52:28 AM »


LOL!!

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18204
Kerry... why?
« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2004, 10:53:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant


remove the gerbil :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline TheDudeDVant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
Kerry... why?
« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2004, 10:54:58 AM »
lol eagler

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Kerry... why?
« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2004, 12:32:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* What a great thread this is. While Nash is presenting his whole collection of one-liners Nuke is jumping up and down yelling "I win, I win" like the snot-nosed kid next door everybody ignores, and Grun's got a big US flag flying from his Croatian dick, and stubbornly keeps poking Nash with it. Other players eagerly join the fray and swing their "lightsabers" with stubborn determination.

However in all this ... nothingness, there is one guy who stands out. He's considering voting against Bush even if he stands to lose significant money by doing so. And that pretty much says it all IMHO.


Who are you voting for GS?...Oh wait....



(Who'd I streal that one from?)

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Kerry... why?
« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2004, 12:41:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* What a great thread this is. While Nash is presenting his whole collection of one-liners Nuke is jumping up and down yelling "I win, I win" like the snot-nosed kid next door everybody ignores, and Grun's got a big US flag flying from his Croatian dick, and stubbornly keeps poking Nash with it. Other players eagerly join the fray and swing their "lightsabers" with stubborn determination.

However in all this ... nothingness, there is one guy who stands out. He's considering voting against Bush even if he stands to lose significant money by doing so. And that pretty much says it all IMHO.


oh yeah?

well I win!

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Kerry... why?
« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2004, 12:48:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
But can you say what Kerry offers that Bush has not delivered?


Kerry offers a lot that Bush hasn't delivered.

Kerry offers 'equity' in tax cuts by canceling the cuts for the wealthiest percentile of Americans

Kerry offers a closer working relationship with the rest of the world by giving the UN a larger say in international matters.

Kerry offers an economic plan that focuses on protecting domestic jobs.

Most importantly, Kerry offers an administration that isn't the one that we've had for the last four years.
-People don't like Bush because we had an economic downturn on his watch
-People don't like Bush because he fumbles while in an open forum with the media
-People don't like Bush because he wears his religion on his sleeve.
-People don't like Bush because he allows the image of impropriety when it comes to deals with major corporations.


NOW, since I'm going to vote for George Bush's second term, I'd like to debunk these arguements.
-Those tax cuts to the wealthiest percentile are going to help everyone because that money will get spent or invested in the infrastructure of the United States.  Had the tax cuts gone to completely eliminate tax for the lowest 20%, a much higher percentage of that money would have been lost on consumables.
-Under NO circumstances should the final word be placed on the altar of the UN.  The fact of the matter is, even given our problems, the US govt is the least corrupt political organization the world has to offer.
-Forcing companies to stay in the United States instead of allowing to spread around the rest of the world cuts into thier profitability.  Less profitability, less jobs, less taxes paid to the govt, etc.
-As far as people who hate Bush...  There aren't enough of them to sway the vote.  I have confidence in the American voting populace that enough people will actually consider the facts first before voting (no matter who they decide to vote for).

Offline MrCoffee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
Kerry... why?
« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2004, 01:07:23 PM »
Quote
-Forcing companies to stay in the United States instead of allowing to spread around the rest of the world cuts into thier profitability. Less profitability, less jobs, less taxes paid to the govt, etc.


I agree however the context of this statement is vary vague. Sure companies should get a foot hold of foreign markets and sell overseas. China has done a great job of that. Now the whole idea or invention of manufacturing overseas and vice versa seems logical in a perfect business world however in reality, with all due respect, its stupid practice. The world is more complex than common business doctrine and methodology. I think its dumb and and dumb politics supports it. In the near future, you will see that I and others who agree with this are right. in the end you will still need politics to protect and govern the entire fiasco.

Offline MrCoffee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
Kerry... why?
« Reply #98 on: June 16, 2004, 01:22:54 PM »
And Preon, the language is not directed at you. Just wanted to make that clear.

;)

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Kerry... why?
« Reply #99 on: June 16, 2004, 01:26:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Preon1
- I have confidence in the American voting populace that enough people will actually consider the facts first before voting (no matter who they decide to vote for).


Great post, right up until you wrote the above...

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Kerry... why?
« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2004, 01:32:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MrCoffee
I agree however the context of this statement is vary vague. Sure companies should get a foot hold of foreign markets and sell overseas. China has done a great job of that. Now the whole idea or invention of manufacturing overseas and vice versa seems logical in a perfect business world however in reality, with all due respect, its stupid practice. The world is more complex than common business doctrine and methodology. I think its dumb and and dumb politics supports it. In the near future, you will see that I and others who agree with this are right. in the end you will still need politics to protect and govern the entire fiasco.


I'll stipulate that you are aware of many things that I am ignorant of.  I'll stipulate that I'm not a businessman and that my view of economics is certainly limited.

However, it seems any method for allowing business to become more efficient is a good thing.  If a company can go to a foreign nation, play by their rules, and complete a job at a fraction of the cost than in the US, then more power to them!  If it turns out that some quirk of international politics makes that venture unprofitable, then they'll pull out (by the way, a strong US foreign policy will make that all the easier for US companies)

Labor has survived the industrial revolution.  It has survived the education of society, the indoctrination of women, and the dawn of the information age.  It will survive international outsourcing.

Offline MrCoffee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
Kerry... why?
« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2004, 02:08:30 PM »
Now Im not completely against "outsourcing" and manufacturing overseas. However my own worries here are that the situation can easily get out of control. We have actually just begun to outsource and it has not been for that many years. Overseas manufacturing has been steadily happening for the past 20 years. The whole new situation of labor shift and economic fanancial efficiencies in the near future can easily become screwed. I just hope we have a leader that can guide us through this important turn and do it smart and right.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Kerry... why?
« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2004, 02:49:31 PM »
translating what kerry is saying....

you need to pay more taxes.

you need to pay more for goods and have less choice.

you need to pay the U.N. more to socialize your country and take away your 2nd amendmant rights.

even tho allmost  everyone who works has really good health insurance and only those who don't work get worse health care... it would be better if you payed for the useless by haveing a crappy health care system.

the wealthy are your enemy and anyone who makes more than you do right now should be punished cause it isn't fair that they earn more than you when you take into account your dissabbilty, your allergy to hard work.

you need to pay about twice as much for half the car.

lazs

Offline JBA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1797
Kerry... why?
« Reply #103 on: June 16, 2004, 03:24:42 PM »
about outsourcing

 
 http://www.investors.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title: "Offshoring Is No Crisis, Just 4,633 Lost In Q1, New BLS Data Show "
Author: CHRISTINA WISE  
Section: Business & The Economy  Date: 6/11/2004  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
A Labor Department report out Thursday showed offshoring accounted for just 1.9% of the 239,361 U.S. workers who lost their jobs in mass layoffs in the first quarter.

In all, there were 1,204 mass layoffs from January to March, affecting 239,361 workers. Of these, 34 layoffs involving 4,633 people were due to overseas relocation of jobs; 79 layoffs hitting 9,985 people stemmed from the relocation of jobs within the U.S.

Concerns about the offshoring of U.S. jobs have received substantial print and TV media coverage in recent months. Democratic presidential contender John Kerry has railed against "Benedict Arnold" corporations.

"What the survey suggests is that at the height of concerns over offshoring, there were only 4,633 jobs shipped overseas," said Doug Porter, senior economist for Toronto-based BMO Nesbitt Burns. "When you consider the size of the labor market, it is really a drop in the bucket."

He added, "All through that debate we were trying to make the argument that the whole debate was overwrought and that offshoring was not a threat to the U.S. economy."

Of the total mass layoffs, 1.9% of lost jobs were due to overseas relocations. Excluding seasonal layoffs, 2.5% lost their jobs due to offshoring, while 5.5% stemmed from relocations within the U.S.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy added 595,000 net new jobs in the first quarter and 1.2 million through May.

The Midwest was the hardest hit region of the U.S., accounting for 430 of the 1,204 mass layoffs in the first quarter. The West saw 313 mass layoffs, the South 246 and the Northeast 215.

Manufacturers had 386 mass layoff announcements in the quarter, followed by construction firms with 229 and retailers with 132.

The Labor Department plans to release similar reports in future quarters. The survey covers layoffs of at least 50 people at companies with 50 or more employees.

"It doesn't seem to be as bad as the talk was," said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards. "Judging from the concern about offshoring and the discussions of it, you would have thought it was a much bigger percentage of the total than this report suggests."

There could be two reasons for that, he said: "One is that this is only a sample of one quarter and it could have been much bigger in other quarters. The other one is what I call the blue car theory. You buy a blue car and all of a sudden you start noticing all the other blue cars on the road and you think everyone has a blue car."

The same theory may be at play among workers who've seen their jobs eliminated due to offshoring.

"This shows a lot of jobs went overseas, but as a percentage of the total mass layoffs it was less than 2%," Thayer said of the data. "Some were due to companies trying to find lower cost wages, but it looks like a lot of it was due to companies in financial difficulty."  

 

.
"They effect the march of freedom with their flash drives.....and I use mine for porn. Viva La Revolution!". .ZetaNine  03/06/08
"I'm just a victim of my own liberalhoodedness"  Midnight Target