Legally, John Kerry CAN'T BE the president!

[OneThirty8]

Bush's environmental policy: I do not like a lot of it, and will probably agree with the Bush bashers on most things, but to say that's he's trying to ensure the demise of our planet is just plain stupid.

Pardon me for thinking that people would understand my point without taking what I said 100% literally. He's certainly helping the planet on its way toward destruction. His record on the environment is terrible.

[ragnarok2040]

I believe lowering the corporate tax, like Kerry suggests, will bring more business here, as well as cutting taxes down to 10% for repatriated profits for companies will bring jobs here and using the money gained from that tax to generate a job creation credit, is pretty ingenious as it pays for itself, lowers taxes, and overall stimulates the economy/job gain. As for raising taxes for the rich, no one here is rich enough to be in the top 1% of the bracket, so why are you even defending them? I've seen enough of them say they want to be taxed to convince me, and they'll always have more money as their interest/bonds/etc. will gain more than they're taxed. Tax rates should be distributed based on how the money is distributed. In order to have a good government, you have to pay for it.

As for education, I don't think it's fair to people who have worked 20 or more years of their life to have to go back to college to learn a new skill just to get a new job, paying for it all the while. So not only are their bills piling up, so are the loans they have to take out to get reeducated and all their previous experience goes to waste. Bringing back jobs in which they have experience while creating new jobs for college graduates is a better solution to the problem.

As for Al Qaeda/Saddam links, there are none. Put simply, Saddam wouldn't want his authority threatened by the like of Al Qaeda. Look at Iraq now, Saddam's out of the picture, Al Qaeda is recruiting/attacking more than ever. Look at the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam had reason enough for his dislike.

[|darc|]

You like Kerry, fail to understand that a good job, requires a good education.

As a Bush supporter, you just shot yourself in the foot right there.

Tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year was great for the economy that pulled this country out of the Clinton/Gore recession in record time. Why is tax cuts for small business' bad? They are the largest supplier of new jobs. Why is it that liberal think that raising taxes will somehow stimulate an economy? Raise taxes, productivity is lowered. Research any communist nation history, redistrubution of wealth does not work.

Cutting taxes for the top 1% so the fat cats can get fatter and further induce their corporate culture on 99% of the population does not sound like economical salvation to me. Tax cuts for small businesses isn't a bad idea. However, it seems to me that its just a diversion at this point.

I don't care why we went Iraq, we are safer in the USA with bush. Kerry want to talk about other countries feelings. I want someone who will do what is best for this country regardless.

How are we safer with Bush? It's proven: Iraq had no WMDs. So, let's say Gore got the office he won in 2000. Would we have had a harder time as far as terrorism goes? Would we be living in a nuclear wasteland? Bush has done nothing to PROVE we're safer under him. You just assume it because he aggressively attacks innocent countries that have a bad reputation.

Sadam was bribing France, Germany, Russia and the UN to lift sanctions so he could startup his WMD program again. Why would anyone care that the only vocal non-supporting coutries were France, Germany and Russia against the US/Britian led coalition acting according to a UN resolution to use force.

Wait a second, I thought you Conservatives were saying he was making WMDs regardless? The truth is, if Iraq were to ever attempt to attack the US, we would have full support of the world's nations to retaliate. And as far as all that "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" BS goes, what ever happened to our defense systems? I have a hard time believing that Iraq is going to be able to make a weapon to slip past our systems, without being noticed.

Plus I heard on the radio today that there were all kinds of links between Sadam and Al Quida. Even the 911 report said there were links, the just could not calaberate them but those were not the only reports that show the links. Research it.

Now you're just lying. The talks of the links you speak of are probably a regurgitation of Cheney's refusal to admit the truth about how he was wrong. The 911 commision found no links.

Goerge Bush sent me $400. That's good enough for me to vote him into office again. We all pay fewer taxes with Bush. The many uninformed on this board yap on and on about the $89B in tax cuts o the richest 1%, but then somehow conveniently do not mention the $146B tax cuts for the middle class. ..|.,

$146B to the common man sounds nice, but $89B to a group of rich friends just negates that.

The Patriot act: They'll wine about the patriot act being unconstitutional, and causing the loss of all of our civil rights. Oh no! I can't even talk on my phone anymore without big brother monitoring my calls. Please. 99% of the people who wine about the patriot act are COMPLETELY uninformed about it, and are just spouting off nonsense that they hear from coworkers and on dumba$$ web sites. I am sure there are problems with the patriot act, but for the love of God, it won't even affect 99% of the entire U.S. population! You have lost nothing, and are now safer because of the Patriot act.

The second after you willfully let your rights slip just a little bit, they will completely slip away. I agree with Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Allies: The bush haters and the uninformed whine about the U.S. not having allies. What? Are you that blinded by hatred of Bush, and that gullable enough to actually believe Kerry's propaganda that you don't see every major power helping in Afghanistan? Some of our allies chose not to go into Iraq. This does not mean that they are no longer our allies, especially when they are actively helping us in other countries... People are way too narrow minded about this. It's disturbing, becasue these dolts are all voting for Kerry, and he just may be President, although I seriously doubt it. I repeat: Kerr's nonsense abou the U.S losing it's allies it just that. Don't be a moron!

The fact that they aren't going in Iraq shows how crazy of a war it is. Force in Afghanistan was needed, and that's why they're there. Force in Iraq was not needed. The rest of the world's nations see that. It doesn't mean they're stupid or bribed--get real. It just means they aren't blinded by hatred and a strong sense of war-mongering.

Farenheit 911. Please... Farenhype 911. If after watching that, you can't see what Moore is doing, then you're a moron.

Both movies just seem to be feeding the viewer what they want to hear to reinforce their views. It's all BS, really.

Amen. I got $800. First president to ever send me money, that I should have never paid to begin with. That also bought my vote too

Maybe that's why you're so blind.

[ragnarok2040]

Goerge Bush sent me $400. That's good enough for me to vote him into office again. We all pay fewer taxes with Bush. The many uninformed on this board yap on and on about the $89B in tax cuts o the richest 1%, but then somehow conveniently do not mention the $146B tax cuts for the middle class. ..|.,

Why are we even worrying about 1% of the people? We could raise taxes on 1% of the people, and have the government $89,000,000,000 richer so that it could maybe afford.. I don't know, police/homeland security funding, education funding, etc. etc. Those loans we have aren't free money, we have to pay them off sometime, otherwise we'll be paying more on interest than anything else.. if we aren't already...

[Roofus]

Goerge Bush sent me $400. That's good enough for me to vote him into office again.

If I send you $500, will you vote for me?

[farrell2k]

Goerge Bush sent me $400. That's good enough for me to vote him into office again. We all pay fewer taxes with Bush. The many uninformed on this board yap on and on about the $89B in tax cuts o the richest 1%, but then somehow conveniently do not mention the $146B tax cuts for the middle class. ..|.,

Why are we even worrying about 1% of the people? We could raise taxes on 1% of the people, and have the government $89,000,000,000 richer so that it could maybe afford.. I don't know, police/homeland security funding, education funding, etc. etc. Those loans we have aren't free money, we have to pay them off sometime, otherwise we'll be paying more on interest than anything else.. if we aren't already...

I'm not worried about anyone, but myself; however; Bush has done exactly what Kerry says he is going to do. Kerry says he's going to lower corporate taxes (rich people will have lower taxes too), and then he's going to lower taxes even more for the middle class (or so he says)... It's exactly what Bush did, and you're crucifying him for it! It's o.k. if Kerry does it, but when Bush does it, it is somehow wrong... Do you not see how amusing that is? lol.

If I send you $500, will you vote for me?

Nah, I do have some scruples

[OneThirty8]

Goerge Bush sent me $400. That's good enough for me to vote him into office again. We all pay fewer taxes with Bush. The many uninformed on this board yap on and on about the $89B in tax cuts o the richest 1%, but then somehow conveniently do not mention the $146B tax cuts for the middle class. ..|.,

Why are we even worrying about 1% of the people? We could raise taxes on 1% of the people, and have the government $89,000,000,000 richer so that it could maybe afford.. I don't know, police/homeland security funding, education funding, etc. etc. Those loans we have aren't free money, we have to pay them off sometime, otherwise we'll be paying more on interest than anything else.. if we aren't already...

I'm not worried about anyone, but myself;

That's the problem with many people today. They're too concerned about themselves to understand that what is good for the group is good for the individual.

however; Bush has done exactly what Kerry says he is going to do. Kerry says he's going to lower corporate taxes (rich people will have lower taxes too), and then he's going to lower taxes even more for the middle class (or so he says)... It's exactly what Bush did, and you're crucifying him for it! It's o.k. if Kerry does it, but when Bush does it, it is somehow wrong... Do you not see how amusing that is? lol.

That's an oversimplification. When I've heard Kerry speak, he's talked about reducing taxes for anyone making less than $200,000 a year. He wants those making more to pay more, and he's going to cut out the tax loopholes that actually encourage businesses to outsoruce jobs. By giving a tax credit to those companies who return the jobs to the Americans who lost them, we will generate more tax revenue. That is having it both ways, but it makes perfect sense. If you lower the tax rate, but get more people making more money, you're still going to generate more revenue. Bush isn't putting enough pressure on companies to bring jobs back home. Also, by rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest as I heard Kerry say he plans to do, right off the bat you're bringing in more cash from those who can afford to give it.

[Veggita2099]

There is no point argueing this. Nobody will ever win in a political debate so why bother. All I am going to say to avoid a 10 page long VOTE FOR KERRY, VOTE FOR BUSH debate is the American people will make there choice this November. Hopefully this time People don't lose there votes to faulty voting systems and we will have a real election.

[Ex-Cyber]

If you lower the tax rate, but get more people making more money, you're still going to generate more revenue.

Aside from the fact that what Kerry is proposing isn't really a tax cut in the grand scheme of things (he essentially wants companies to rearrange their assets so that currently untaxable transactions become taxable, which is effectively a tax hike unless he cuts the rate to 0%), here's the problem I have with the whole idea of "lower tax rate + more taxable transactions = higher revenue (aka "trickle-down economics" aka "supply-side economics" aka "voodoo economics"): the numbers don't seem to add up. Granted, this is a very naive analysis, but I'd be interested to see some math that explains this:

Suppose that we start with a flat tax rate of 25% - for every $100 made, $25 goes into the general government fund. Now suppose that we want to cut taxes by 20%. This would result in a tax rate of 20%. Now for every $100 of gross income made, $20 goes to the government. For the tax cut to be revenue-neutral, it seems that the overall taxable gross income must increase by 25% (20% x $125 = $25). Since 25% of $100 (= $25) is 5 times more than 20% of $25 (= $5) , it would seem that the savings from the tax cut must essentially be invested such that they effectively have an annual return of 500%. If you can show me an investment plan that averages that and doesn't involve massive inflation, fraud, or Gray's Sports Almanac, I'll be your best friend forever.

If you have an alternative explanation of how the gap is closed, please explain how it doesn't allow the absurdity of infinitely small taxes resulting in infinitely large revenue (adjusting for inflation).

[OneThirty8]

If you have an alternative explanation of how the gap is closed, please explain how it doesn't allow the absurdity of infinitely small taxes resulting in infinitely large revenue (adjusting for inflation).

Simply put, we don't allow infinitely small tax rates. We tax people at a reasonable rate, and give the cuts to those who deserve them rather than the ones who paid off the Pres... err.. those who contributed to somebody's campaign. Corporations will pay the taxes they ought to be paying, with the tax credit only going to those companies who bring jobs back to America. If we can lower the unemployment rate, get Americans earning more money, and tax them at a reasonable rate, we can set things right with the economy again. The way Bush is doing it seems to be 'eh, here, if you vote for me I promise I won't tax you. I will spend all of the money you would have been paying and then some, only we'll just borrow it instead.' He doesn't seem to have a plan to keep Americans employed, and those who find new work often have to take a pay cut. They make less money, they pay less in taxes, etc...

The goal isn't to have infinitely small taxes and huge amounts of revenue. Bush's plan is apparently infinitely small tax rates (for the wealthiest Americans), infinitely small amounts of revenue, and infinitely large amounts of spending. That's the other piece of it - we don't spend what we can't afford to spend.

[farrell2k]

Kerry seems to have many of the gullable under the delusion that giving tax credits is going to cut outsourcing. There's no way in hell it'll make up for the cost gaps between paying a chinese worker to do something, and paying an american worker to do it. Kerry is going to come in, stop the Bush tax cuts, and make things even worse. Companies are going to make up for those losses by laying off and outsourcing. It's something that no one can every really do anything about. The American worker is just going to ave to accept that certain things will always be manufactured elsewhere, and he is going to have to evolve to adapt to it. Don't trust anyone who says that he'll stop jobs from being exported overseas. He is promising you something he can't, and you should be smart enough to see right through it.

[MystiK]

Kerry seems to have many of the gullable under the delusion that giving tax credits is going to cut outsourcing. There's no way in hell it'll make up for the cost gaps between paying a chinese worker to do something, and paying an american worker to do it. Kerry is going to come in, stop the Bush tax cuts, and make things even worse. Companies are going to make up for those losses by laying off and outsourcing. It's something that no one can every really do anything about. The American worker is just going to ave to accept that certain things will always be manufactured elsewhere, and he is going to have to evolve to adapt to it. Don't trust anyone who says that he'll stop jobs from being exported overseas. He is promising you something he can't, and you should be smart enough to see right through it.

there must be a blue moon out tonight cuz i agree with that. Outsourcing is a necessary evil just as is the introduction of robots and computers in the workplace. I honestly do not think the average consumer values billy's job over a 25% drop in prices at walmart or dell.

I remember Kerry saying that he is not implying that he will STOP outsourcing though, but rather stop rewarding companies that practice this with tax cuts, whether that will discourage them from outsourcing or not because either way its a waste of money.

[Ex-Cyber]

138: I understand all that; I guess my actual question was kind of off-topic.

[OneThirty8]

Kerry seems to have many of the gullable under the delusion that giving tax credits is going to cut outsourcing. There's no way in hell it'll make up for the cost gaps between paying a chinese worker to do something, and paying an american worker to do it. Kerry is going to come in, stop the Bush tax cuts, and make things even worse. Companies are going to make up for those losses by laying off and outsourcing. It's something that no one can every really do anything about. The American worker is just going to ave to accept that certain things will always be manufactured elsewhere, and he is going to have to evolve to adapt to it. Don't trust anyone who says that he'll stop jobs from being exported overseas. He is promising you something he can't, and you should be smart enough to see right through it.

We certainly don't have to reward companies for laying us off. Hopefully, they'll bring the jobs back home. If they don't, they can stop getting a tax cut for sending jobs overseas. Kerry said himself that there is no way to eliminate outsourcing of jobs, but he isn't going to reward companies who do it.

And since when does listening to an idea that differs from that of farrell2k make a person gullible? At least I don't believe every line of bullcrap that the President delivers.

By the way, gullable isn't in the dictionary.

[farrell2k]

And since when does listening to an idea that differs from that of farrell2k make a person gullible?

When someone actually believes Kerry's load of bull about cutting outsourcing through tax cuts and other incentives. If you think raising taxes/stopping the bush tax cuts on the rich and big corporations is going to help the economy, and help stimulate job growth, then you're a complete moron, and deserve what Kerry will give you.

Oh, and this little loophole that Kerry likes to spout off about, it wasn't created by Bush, and congress must feel it's necessary It's been on the books for 20+ years. There is plenty of more info about it online. Of corse it's all Bush fault anyway, because senator Kerry says so. He yaps on and on about leveling the play field for american workers. lol. A programmer here making $60/hr cannot compete with his chinese counterpart making $12/hr with no benefits! There is NO WAY to level that playing field. The sad part is that gullible, half-wit democrats actually believe he can magically do it!

At least I don't believe every line of bullcrap that the President delivers.

I don't think anyone said that you do. Well, at least I haven't

[OneThirty8]

And since when does listening to an idea that differs from that of farrell2k make a person gullible?

When someone actually believes Kerry's load of bull about cutting outsourcing through tax cuts and other incentives. If you think raising taxes/stopping the bush tax cuts on the rich and big corporations is going to help the economy, and help stimulate job growth, then you're a complete moron, and deserve what Kerry will give you.

Oh, and this little loophole that Kerry likes to spout off about, it wasn't created by Bush, and congress must feel it's necessary It's been on the books for 20+ years. There is plenty of more info about it online. Of corse it's all Bush fault anyway, because senator Kerry says so. He yaps on and on about leveling the play field for american workers. lol. A programmer here making $60/hr cannot compete with his chinese counterpart making $12/hr with no benefits! There is NO WAY to level that playing field. The sad part is that gullible, half-wit democrats actually believe he can magically do it!

I am fully aware that John Kerry can't magically make outsourcing go away. He can eliminate the loophole that gives companies a reward for outsourcing, and I don't see how that is a bad thing. What's the worst that will happen? The jobs will still be filled by undernourished Chinese infants who will work for breadcrumbs, and the companies that employ them will be paying more taxes in the USA. More money for us, and the Chinese kid gets to keep his job. I never claimed that Bush created the loophole and contrary to the beliefs of some, a candidate's plan for doing things 'differently' can include changing or eliminating things that the current President didn't create! The President, however, doesn't think that loophole is as important as underfunding No Child Left Behind. Kerry, who seems to also like No Child Left Behind, wants to provide more funding for that program. That is a case where both candidates like a particular program, but see it from different angles. After listening to Bush speak in the debates, I was left with the idea that he feels that a good elementary school education is the be-all end-all solution for our nations problems. Kerry, on the other hand, lives in the real world where we fund education, and then do what we can to ensure that people can get a damn job after they meet their personal educational goals.

At least I don't believe every line of bullcrap that the President delivers.

I don't think anyone said that you do. Well, at least I haven't

Right... my point was that I'm not as gullible as you seem to think Democrats in general are.

[ragnarok2040]

No Child Left Behind wasn't underfunded, but it wasn't funded to the maximum amount that it could be, which has caused some of the poorer schools to close their after-school programs that kept kids off the street. Although, that does seem to fall under the definition of underfunded if schools couldn't provide funds for them.

[farrell2k]

And since when does listening to an idea that differs from that of farrell2k make a person gullible?

When someone actually believes Kerry's load of bull about cutting outsourcing through tax cuts and other incentives. If you think raising taxes/stopping the bush tax cuts on the rich and big corporations is going to help the economy, and help stimulate job growth, then you're a complete moron, and deserve what Kerry will give you.

Oh, and this little loophole that Kerry likes to spout off about, it wasn't created by Bush, and congress must feel it's necessary It's been on the books for 20+ years. There is plenty of more info about it online. Of corse it's all Bush fault anyway, because senator Kerry says so. He yaps on and on about leveling the play field for american workers. lol. A programmer here making $60/hr cannot compete with his chinese counterpart making $12/hr with no benefits! There is NO WAY to level that playing field. The sad part is that gullible, half-wit democrats actually believe he can magically do it!

I am fully aware that John Kerry can't magically make outsourcing go away. He can eliminate the loophole that gives companies a reward for outsourcing, and I don't see how that is a bad thing. What's the worst that will happen? The jobs will still be filled by undernourished Chinese infants who will work for breadcrumbs, and the companies that employ them will be paying more taxes in the USA. More money for us, and the Chinese kid gets to keep his job. I never claimed that Bush created the loophole and contrary to the beliefs of some, a candidate's plan for doing things 'differently' can include changing or eliminating things that the current President didn't create! The President, however, doesn't think that loophole is as important as underfunding No Child Left Behind. Kerry, who seems to also like No Child Left Behind, wants to provide more funding for that program. That is a case where both candidates like a particular program, but see it from different angles. After listening to Bush speak in the debates, I was left with the idea that he feels that a good elementary school education is the be-all end-all solution for our nations problems. Kerry, on the other hand, lives in the real world where we fund education, and then do what we can to ensure that people can get a damn job after they meet their personal educational goals.

At least I don't believe every line of bullcrap that the President delivers.

I don't think anyone said that you do. Well, at least I haven't

Right... my point was that I'm not as gullible as you see
m to think Democrats in general are.

Kery can't eliminate anything! Congress has to change the tax law, but they won't do it, because it is good for companies! There have been one or two attenpts at it by lawmakers, and I may try to find more info about it, but it has stayed in the tax code for a long time. If you believe that Kerry is going to come into office, and change what he doesn't like, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how hte U.S. gov't works. Kerry can write up proposals until he's blue in the face, but it doesn't mean that he'll get jack squat done. I get the feeling that you believe Kerry when he says that he can do all of what he is proposing, and it's just not going to happen. The anyone but Bush mentality seems to be clouding the rational judgment of many people.

[Ex-Cyber]

If you believe that Kerry is going to come into office, and change what he doesn't like, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how hte U.S. gov't works. Kerry can write up proposals until he's blue in the face, but it doesn't mean that he'll get jack squat done.

Just because the President has no official power over what bills get introduced and passed in Congress doesn't mean that he doesn't have a tremendous amount of unofficial power through political alliances.

[farrell2k]

If you believe that Kerry is going to come into office, and change what he doesn't like, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how hte U.S. gov't works. Kerry can write up proposals until he's blue in the face, but it doesn't mean that he'll get jack squat done.

Just because the President has no official power over what bills get introduced and passed in Congress doesn't mean that he doesn't have a tremendous amount of unofficial power through political alliances.

The point was that many believe that kerry can come in and just change things arbitrarily. At least bush was honest, saying that he'd work with both parties to try and get his stuff done. My God, Kerry is such a douche bag....