Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 132
  1. #1
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095

    John Kerry's Tax plan... Increase taxes


  2. #2
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    ive said it before, but here goes again. increasing the deficit increases inflation, thus lowering the value of the dollar. taxes suck, and its way out of control. however, if you devaluate the doller by 5% over the course of 10 years (by printing money to keep up with the hole that is being dug) you are going to loose WAY more than you will ever get back by that silly tax cut. inflation in the '80 caused a 10% decrease in the value of the dollar, which is part of the explaination as to why the euro kicks our ass today. you dont put the american people in a better spot by cutting taxes and increasing spending (like your hero bush has done ), you do it by decreasing spending, then cutting taxes.

  3. #3
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    you do it by decreasing spending, then cutting taxes.[/QUOTE]

    Kerry is proposing the hell out of new spending bro!

  4. #4
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    bush has already done it.

  5. #5
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    bush has already done it.
    What? On whom? He has lowered taxes at least twice since he took office bud...
    Don't know about you, but I have recieved 2 checks in the mail mid-year from the fed.. that was a first in my lifetime as an adult

  6. #6
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    he has given a tax cut and increased spending. this is exactly what i am talking about...bud.

  7. #7
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    he has given a tax cut and increased spending. this is exactly what i am talking about...bud.
    Oh, youmust have forgotten about that day almost 3 years ago... 9/11
    we were attacked, and that costs money bud....

  8. #8
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, over $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

    As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, author of such key books as Crisis and Leviathan and the new Against Leviathan, this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.

  9. #9
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    ...bud

  10. #10
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Well then you should be nice and happy...
    And you think Kerry's gonna nip that spending in the butt... please

  11. #11
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    maybe he will, and maybe he wont. but you put this thread up with the premise that the evil kerry is going to **** you out of your money, but bush has already done plenty of it.

  12. #12
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    maybe he will, and maybe he wont. but you put this thread up with the premise that the evil kerry is going to **** you out of your money, but bush has already done plenty of it.
    Once again, Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in the senate, ahead of Hilary, Teddy Kennedy, and all the others.. That is a pretty good testimate to what he's gonna do.. Tax and spend... His basic ideology is Socialistic. That means tax and spend.

    And no Bush has not F*** me out of my money, I got a nice big check from him twice last year... Kerry has,,, he voted against the proposal to increase the child tax credit last year...
    Last edited by Jdawg50; 09-09-2004 at 08:36 PM.

  13. #13
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Hey sin,
    I'm not trying to be a dick bro... I hope you know that? This has been a fun back and forth though...

  14. #14
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    your talking out your ass now, let me know when you have a real argument. and like i said earlier that silly tax cut will only make up for a fraction of what is taken from you by the devaluation of the dollar.

  15. #15
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Hey sin,
    I'm not trying to be a dick bro... I hope you know that? This has been a fun back and forth though...
    of course, this is all in good fun. i dont have any political beliefs, i just enjoy arguing.

  16. #16
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    your talking out your ass now, let me know when you have a real argument. and like i said earlier that silly tax cut will only make up for a fraction of what is taken from you by the devaluation of the dollar.
    I still think that is questionable... Long term it might not bro. For example, in the 80's they ran huge deficits to pay for the cold war.. and that was due to large amounts of spending on weapons (most of which Kerry voted against btw) which helped to end the cold war and bring stability to the world. Then there was a peacetime economic boom. There are a lot of other factors that go into the value of the dollar, than just the spending by the government.

    I would rather see less spending than what Bush has proposed, however, compared to John Kerry he is a delight. Kerry wants socialized medicine.. Do you have any idea what that would cost us? You wanna talk about the dollar going south, lets take one of the top dollar producing sector and give it to the government... Lets see what happens then.

  17. #17
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    The Kerry Record
    What John Kerry said about foreign policy and defense in 1984 and 1985.
    by Daniel McKivergan
    09/03/2004 4:30:00 PM
    Increase Font Size
    Printer-Friendly



    Email a Friend
    Respond to this article








    BEHIND THE STARTLING FLIP-FLOPS, beneath the gauzy rhetoric, what does John Kerry really think about foreign and defense policy? Ranging from his 1971 testimony on Vietnam to his current statements on Iraq and the war on terror, there's a lot to be said. But one good place to start, of course, is his Senate years. Here's an appetizer.

    In 1984, Senate candidate Kerry stated that Reagan's "defense buildup . . . is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use," and that "there's no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of mass destruction . . . and I will never do so." He attacked the Reagan administration in a campaign policy brief for having "no rational plan for our military," and, presaging sentiments he often expresses today with regard to President Bush's national security policies, charged that the "biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so." Kerry also proposed a $53 billion cut in Reagan's fiscal year 1985 defense budget and called for the termination of the following defense programs: MX missile, B-1 Bomber, Anti-satellite weapons, Strategic Defense Initiative, AH-64 helicopters, Patriot Air Defense System, Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, battleship reactivation, AV-8B Harrier jet, F-15, F-14A, F-14D, and the Phoenix and Sparrow air-to-air missiles. Kerry also proposed cutting funds for the Tomahawk cruise missile by half, as well as reductions in other weapons systems.

    In 1985, in his
    first floor speech as a Senator, Kerry detailed his opposition to President Reagan's policy with regard to the Soviet Union:


    In addition, the past 30 years of arms negotiations have demonstrated that the United States resolve to expand its military will prompt a renewed Soviet military buildup, not a mutually satisfactory agreement to reserve the buildup. . . .

    Unfortunately, bargaining chips in the form of new weapons, particularly when it is obvious that deployment will proceed no matter what arms talks may produce, are rarely cashed in. In fact we know they frequently add to military power, [and] seldom, if ever, contribute to security or arms control trade-offs. . . .

    As my senior colleague, Senator Kennedy succinctly stated, "a bargaining chip is good so long as it is not played. Once played, its only effect is to raise the stakes." The history of bargaining chips is miserable. . . .

    It is time that we accept the idea that the Soviet Union is not going to bargain with the United States from a position in which we have grabbed the upper hand through the development of some new technology. They are only going to agree with the United States on arms limitations if they have parity, in overall force capacity. . . .


    In 1985, Kerry also sponsored a nuclear freeze resolution--the Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze and Arms Reduction Act of 1985--and traveled to Nicaragua with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and 10 House Democrats to meet with Sandinista officials. His group was criticized by Secretary of State George Shultz for going to Nicaragua as "self-appointed emissaries to the communist regime."

    And John Kerry had just begun. More on his later career next week.

  18. #18
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Here's what I would like to see

    Bush's Stealth Flat Tax
    He's more of a tax reformer than people realize.
    by Stephen Moore
    9/4/2004 12:02:00 AM, Volume 010, Issue 01



    OF ALL THE policy recommendations in the president's acceptance speech last week, none got more applause than his promise to revamp our antiquated and antigrowth IRS tax code. But even a mild cynic has to wonder whether this call for a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth tax code" was just a flirtation with voters. After all, every president since Jimmy Carter, who once called the American income tax system "a disgrace to the human race," has promised tax reform. We're still waiting--in fact, we've regressed: The pages of the tax code have nearly doubled in the last 30 years.




    There are signs that tax reform isn't just a passing fancy for Bush, however. He's clearly intrigued with the possibilities of making history here. In early August, when he was asked what he thought of the concept of a national consumption tax, he replied: "It's an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Right on cue, John Kerry protested that Bush had another bundle of tax cuts planned for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and his rich friends at Halliburton. Kerry uttered the non sequitur that if Bush had his way, "families already squeezed by rising health costs and higher gas prices and college costs would have to carry a whole new tax burden." He left out the inconvenient fact that these families would no longer have to pay an income tax.

  19. #19
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Now this is rather long, but it contrasts the difference between the two on Economic issues

    Policy Memo: Kerry's Vision for America: Old Ideas For A New Economy
    George W. Bush ^ | September 9, 2004


    Posted on 09/09/2004 6:50:19 PM PDT by RWR8189



    MEMORANDUM
    FROM: BC'04 POLICY DEPARTMENT

    President George W. Bush has a bold agenda to adapt the government to our changing economy. His broad agenda includes: overhauling our tax code with a simple, fair and pro-growth system, putting patients and doctors in charge of health care instead of government bureaucrats, strengthening and enhancing Social Security, and promoting lifelong learning to give people new skills for better jobs. Each proposal is based on a fundamental principle that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. The President's ideas build on America's inherent strengths - such as technology and our ********** spirit - and allow for all Americans to own their future.

    John Kerry offers a vision of old ideas for a new economy. His agenda is filled with the same old promises that will increase the government's power over our income, retirement, health care, and economy. It starts with a big government-run health care plan that's funded with big tax increases. The government is in charge and the people foot the bill. When evaluating these proposals, voters should simply ask: who will be in charge?

    This memorandum compares and contrasts the differing visions for America's economy in six key areas:

    1. Tax Relief
    2. Health Care
    3. Social Security & Personal Saving
    4. International Competition
    5. Frivolous Lawsuits
    6. Regulatory Reform

    1. Tax Relief: President Bush has a strong record and forward-looking agenda on cutting taxes. John Kerry's record is one of tax hikes. His agenda to put the government in charge of health care and other aspects of our economy will mean raising more taxes.

    President Bush has delivered tax relief for families and our economy - President Bush knows our economy grows when taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend, save and invest as they see fit. 111 million individuals and families, including 25 million small business owners, are receiving tax relief from the:

    New low 10% tax bracket;
    Reduction of individual income tax rates and the marriage penalty;
    Doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000; and
    Quadrupling of small business expensing for new investments.
    (Source: Treasury Department, press release, 4/9/04)
    President Bush will make the tax code simpler, fairer and pro-growth - President Bush has proposed and budgeted to make the tax relief permanent so that taxpayers don't suffer a tax hike and can plan for the future. Furthermore, he has called for a bipartisan effort with Congress to overhaul the tax code so that it's simpler for taxpayers, encourages saving and investment, and improves the economy's ability to create high-paying jobs.

    John Kerry has a record of voting to send more tax dollars to Washington instead of keeping them in the productive hands of individuals and businesses - He has voted for higher taxes hundreds of times. He voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion. In addition, he has voted 126 times against tax cuts, voted 73 times to reduce the size of tax cuts, voted 67 times for smaller tax cuts, and voted 11 times against repealing tax hikes. These votes against taxpayers range from supporting higher taxes on gasoline to opposing the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.

    Now Kerry wants to raise taxes on successful small business owners and entrepreneurs - 90% of businesses pay taxes through the individual income tax, not the corporate income tax, and they have benefited from the President's tax relief. Kerry's call to repeal tax cuts for the "wealthy" would increase taxes on hundreds of thousands of successful small businesses and entrepreneurs who pay taxes in the top two individual income tax brackets. Under Kerry's plan, these small businesses would have to pay a higher tax than corporations. That's unfair and bad economics. (Source: Joint Economic Committee and Small Business Survival Committee)

    Kerry's spending jeopardizes middle class tax relief - Kerry has proposed over $2 trillion in more government spending, yet he won't budget for making permanent the President's middle class tax relief that he claims to support. Kerry's spending means he will have to break his promises of reducing the deficit, not increasing taxes on the middle class, or both.

    2. Health Care: President Bush has a comprehensive health care agenda that will help us adapt to changes in the economy. He is making health care more portable between jobs, putting the consumer in charge and addressing the root causes of health care costs. John Kerry's record is one of ignoring root causes of health care costs. His plan will just shift costs over to the taxpayers and will require tax hikes to fund it.

    President Bush created new, ********** Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to put consumers in control and to lower costs - The new Medicare law created Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that offer flexible, affordable insurance options for small businesses and individuals. The accounts are combined with high-deductible, catastrophic health insurance and allow individuals to save, earn and spend their money on health care tax-free. HSAs put patients in charge and reduce costs by letting them make decisions instead of bureaucrats.

    President Bush proposes to expand HSAs to cover more Americans - He will expand the availability of HSAs in three key ways: (1) provide a tax deduction for the premiums of high-deductible insurance that goes with HSAs, (2) allow the health care tax credits he's proposing for the uninsured to partially fund an HSA, and (3) provide tax incentives for small businesses to fund HSAs for their employees.

    John Kerry continues to oppose HSAs even though they're producing results - HSAs just became available in January of this year, but the evidence is already coming in that they're working:

    43% of those purchasing HSAs were previously uninsured and 70% of purchasers are over the age of 40. (www.fortis.com, 6/21/04 Press Release: "Data Shows HSAs Are An Attractive Option for Broad Range of Americans")
    Nearly half of HSA purchasers make less than $50,000 a year and 70% paid less than $100 a month for their health insurance premiums. (www.ehealthinsurance.com, Health Savings Accounts Fact Sheet, 5/17/04)
    President Bush proposes refundable health care tax credits for the uninsured - The President proposes refundable tax credits of up to $3,000 for families and $1,000 for individuals to help low-income workers buy health insurance coverage that best meets their needs. This proposal would provide coverage for an estimated 4-5 million Americans who currently lack coverage. (Hon. Pamela F. Olson testimony, Ways & Means Committee, 2/11/04)

    Kerry opposes the President's health care tax credits - Kerry has instead proposed a different version of health care tax credits for individuals and small businesses that keep the government in charge. Kerry's command-and-control version of tax credits would allow people to use the credits only if they buy health insurance through a new national insurance pool that Kerry would create and the government would run.

    President Bush proposes Association Health Plans (AHPs) to help small businesses band together to buy health insurance - Small businesses often cannot afford employee health benefits. The President advocates allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate lower health care premiums for their workers and families - just like bigger businesses and unions do. This will give America's working families greater access to health insurance.

    Kerry opposes allowing small businesses to buy health insurance together - He opposes AHPs for small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees, even though in our dynamic economy small businesses create seven out of 10 new jobs. "Labor unions and big corporations already have the ability to purchase health insurance at discounted rates; small business is simply asking for that same right. Opposing AHPs is like forcing small businesses to buy cans of soda one at a time out of a vending machine, except it's their health - not their thirst - that's at stake!" (www.nfib.com, Press Release 3/25/02: NFIB Makes the "Case" for AHPs During Congressional Recess)

    Kerry just shifts health costs onto taxpayers - Kerry's solution is to expand existing federal health care programs and create new government-run insurance pools, shifting the costs to the American taxpayers without giving consumers more control over their health care. Kerry's "savings" of 10 percent is simply a shift of health care costs to the American taxpayer. In addition, Kerry's proposals are available only to employers and insurers who agree to comply with Kerry's stringent requirements regarding the level of coverage, the use of savings, and the eligibility of workers.

    President Bush proposes medical liability reform to save billions of vital health care dollars that could insure more Americans - Too many lawsuits without merit are being filed against doctors and hospitals, forcing them to practice defensive medicine, driving good doctors out of practice, and driving up health care costs for everyone. The President believes people who have a legitimate claim must have their day in court. But to make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone, we must reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and limit excessive jury awards. "Medical liability reform could save consumers between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health care costs, save taxpayers an additional $28 billion annually, and allow another 3.9 million Americans to afford health insurance." ("Addressing the New Health Care Crisis," HHS 03/03/03; "Liability for Medical Malpractice: Issues and Evidence," Joint Economic Committee, 5/03)

    Kerry and Edwards oppose real medical liability reform - Kerry has opposed or voted to block medical liability reforms at least 10 times in the past decade. Now Kerry and Edwards claim the way to reduce frivolous lawsuits is to require that medical liability cases be reviewed by newly created expert panels before they can be filed in court, and then to later hold lawyers accountable if they bring frivolous cases. But their plan will not reduce costs because:

    Expert panels cannot constitutionally prevent cases from being filed in court even when they are found to have no merit. Thus, panels cannot stop trial lawyers from filing as much litigation as they want to. (Source: http://medliabilitypa.org/research/struve1003)
    Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already provides for sanctions against attorneys for filing frivolous lawsuits, and most states have adopted similar or identical measures. The threat of sanctions has not stopped trial lawyers from driving the nation's medical system into crisis. (Source: http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol6-no2.html)
    The Kerry-Edwards plan just adds bureaucracy and will likely increase, rather than decrease, litigation costs. A panel system would require that every case be tried twice, with the first time by an ultra-expensive panel of doctors and trial lawyers. Extra time, extra resources, and (of course) extra attorneys' fees, all for a panel decision that has zero effect. It also delays the recovery of plaintiffs who have truly been injured.
    3. Social Security & Personal Saving: President Bush wants to strengthen Social Security and has a plan to increase personal saving. John Kerry wants to ignore Social Security and has no plan.

    President Bush wants to strengthen Social Security - He wants to add voluntary personal retirement accounts to Social Security for younger workers to be able to save a portion of their payroll taxes so all Americans can build and own a nest-egg for retirement. He opposes changes in benefits for current and near retirees.

    President Bush has shown leadership - He formed a bipartisan commission that unanimously recommended three options for reform. Since then six different bills have been introduced in Congress. President Bush is committed to working with Congress to strengthen Social Security in the next term.

    John Kerry has just been paying "lip service" to Social Security - "[F]rontrunner John Kerry pays lip service to protecting senior's benefits. But one could travel for days on his campaign bus before learning that the system needed any fixing at all. This is surprising since experts in both parties are convinced that Social Security needs a dramatic overhaul, soon. … Democrats, riddled with internal dissent on the proper course for fixing the system, have trouble distinguishing themselves as anything but defenders of the status quo." (Jonathan Darman, "No Time For A Great Debate," Newsweek Online, 2/17/04)

    Kerry doesn't have a vision to fix inequities in the system - His opposition to allowing voluntary, personal retirement accounts in Social Security means denying the opportunity for all workers to build a nest-egg with their own savings that they own. It means denying the opportunity for low-income people - who often die at an early age and cannot recoup their Social Security taxes - the ability to create wealth and pass it on to future generations.

    Kerry doesn't have a plan to avoid steep tax increases, benefit cuts or both - His denial of the reality of the Baby Boomer generation retiring will make Social Security's financial problems even worse.

    Kerry only seems to understand tax increases - He has voted eight times for higher taxes on Social Security benefits - the money didn't even go towards Social Security. He voted five times for Clinton's proposal in 1993 to increase the income tax on certain Social Security benefits from 50% of the benefits to 85% of the benefits. He voted against repealing the tax increase in 1996, 2000 and 2003.

    President Bush has a plan to streamline savings accounts and increase personal savings - He proposes to consolidate the three types of existing Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) into a single Retirement Savings Account, and consolidate numerous employer-based retirement plans into an easier, single Employer Retirement Savings Account. His plan would also create a new Lifetime Savings Account that could be used to save for health care, education, or any other family need. These changes will make it easier for all Americans to save for a variety of needs throughout their lives.

    Kerry opposes the President's plan to streamline and expand savings accounts - He has no plan for Americans to save more for their retirement and other needs.

    4. International Competition: President Bush wants to make sure America is the best place in the world to do business by making sure we have pro-growth policies in place and the best trained workers in the world. John Kerry's proposals will make U.S. companies less competitive.

    The costs of doing business in the U.S. are too high - A study by the Manufacturers ******** and National Association of Manufacturers found last year that external overhead costs add 22% to U.S. manufacturers' unit labor costs. These costs do not include worker's pay. The extra costs come from higher "taxes, health and pension benefits, tort litigation, regulation and rising energy prices" relative to major foreign competitors. ("How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S. Manufacturers Harm Workers and Threaten Competitiveness," Manufacturers ******** and National Association of Manufacturers, 12/03)

    President Bush is making the U.S. a better place to do business - He has a plan to reduce the costs of doing business in the U.S. He is reducing the tax burden on capital by lowering tax rates on capital gains and dividends, and increasing business expensing. Now it's cheaper for businesses to invest in the U.S. As noted above, President Bush is also reducing regulatory costs and working to reduce health care, liability and energy costs.

    John Kerry's corporate tax plan would make the U.S. less internationally competitive - Kerry would partially end the deferral of foreign income, making the tax code even more complicated and making U.S. companies less competitive internationally. The Institute for International Economics reports "it would actually tilt the tax field more steeply in favor of foreign MNCs [multinational companies]."
    ("Senator Kerry on Corporate Tax Reform: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription," Institute for International Economics, Gary Haufbauer, 4/04)

    Kerry's own advisers admit his plan won't stop outsourcing - "Campaign officials acknowledged that the new plan would not stop the broader trend of outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries."
    (Source: "Kerry to Propose Eliminating a Tax Break on U.S. Companies' Overseas Profits," The New York Times, 3/26/04)

    Kerry's New Jobs Tax Credit won't work either - Kerry proposes bringing back a tax credit from the Carter era that didn't work then and won't work now. It's complicated and will require more paperwork. It puts good companies that didn't lay off their employees during the recession at a competitive disadvantage with companies that did lay off employees and now hire employees. Even the study Kerry cited in support of the idea concluded it didn't work: "Most firms either did not know of the program or were not influenced by it, a result which makes this short-run program an imperfect counter-cyclical tool." ("The New Jobs Tax Credit: An Evaluation of the 1977-78 Wage Subsidy Program," Jeffrey M. Perloff and Michael L. Wachter, The American Economic Review, May 1979)

    President Bush is investing in the research, science, and technology needed to expand innovation in America - President Bush will provide universal, affordable broadband access to all Americans by 2007. He has doubled the amount of spectrum available for wireless broadband and has proposed to make permanent the moratorium on Internet taxes. Federal R&D funding is up to a record $132 billion in 2005 - a 44% increase over 2001 levels. He has doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and increased the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget by 30%. President Bush wants to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent to promote private sector investment in new technologies and manufacturing techniques.

    Kerry "has seldom taken a direct role" on high-tech legislation despite long term on Senate Commerce Committee - "Sen. John F. Kerry, a [Commerce] committee member since 1986, has seldom taken a direct role in shaping the major legislative decisions on technology during the 1990s, according to former Federal Communications Commission officials, telecommunications executives and congressional staffers." (Ralph Vartabedian and Lisa Getter, "In Senate, Kerry Maintained A Low Profile On High-Tech," Los Angeles Times, 3/27/04)

    President Bush is investing in the human capital needed to maintain the United States' leadership in innovation - President Bush's bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires all states to have accountability plans to ensure that all students become proficient at reading and math and that achievement gaps are closed between students of different socio-economic backgrounds. President Bush has increased elementary and secondary funding by $12.3 billion (49%) since 2001 to a record $37 billion. The President's new proposals would expand rigorous courses for high school students, promote eLearning opportunities, and invest in math and science programs. He has increased job training funding 12% to a record $23 billion, proposed doubling the number of workers trained by reforming job training programs, proposed $250 million in community colleges that are linked with local employers looking for more skilled workers, and developed policies to make student loans more flexible for life-long learning.

    Students and workers are hurt by Senator Kerry's policies - Kerry weakens accountability by judging schools based on inputs, like teacher attendance, instead of the output of whether students are actually learning. He wants to return to the failed notion that a school can be high-performing, even if a group of students are not proficient in math. Instead of identifying students who need extra help, Kerry's plan hides them under the school's averages. Senator Kerry doesn't offer a single job training proposal to help workers obtain the skills needed to secure high-skilled, high-paying jobs.

    President Bush is providing targeted assistance to communities experiencing difficulties transitioning to the Innovation Economy - The President's Opportunity Zone proposal provides tax incentives, increased bond authority, and targeting of existing competitive grants and tax credits to help communities transition to the Innovation Economy. Communities that have lost a significant portion of their economic base as a result of our changing economy will receive support for economic development, education, job training, affordable housing, telecommunications and other activities critical for revitalizing a community.

    5. Frivolous Lawsuits: President Bush wants to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits on our economy. Our legal system is too unpredictable and costly. John Kerry (and his running mate) has supported these costs in the past and his agenda will do nothing to reduce these costs in the future.

    The U.S. legal system is encouraging frivolous lawsuits that burden our economy while providing too little benefit to victims - The overburdened legal system presently returns less than 50 cents on the dollar to injured plaintiffs, and only 22 cents to compensate for actual economic loss. A survey of 75 Fortune 500 companies found that these companies faced 465 overlapping and duplicative class actions during a 11-year period. (Sources: "Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, U.S. Court Costs: 2002 Update, Trends and Findings on the Costs of the U.S. Tort System;" & "Analysis: Duplicative Class Action Litigation," Class Action Watch)

    The legal system is costing America jobs - Asbestos litigation alone has bankrupted numerous companies, costing Americans 188,000 jobs. The President supports meaningful asbestos reform that protects the rights of those with asbestos-related injuries while preserving American jobs, but Senate Democrats like John Kerry are blocking it. (Source: Trial Lawyers, Inc. "A Report on the Lawsuit Industry in American," 2003)

    It's holding back small businesses too - A small business with $10 million in annual revenue pays about $150,000 a year in tort liability costs. That's money that could be used to invest and hire employees. (Source: "Liability Costs for Small Business: Fast Facts," Institute for Legal Reform, 2004)

    President Bush proposes legal reforms to reduce waste and inefficiency - For example, he would eliminate conflicting and overlapping class action lawsuits from being filed in multiple jurisdictions with a new minimum diversity rule that would extend federal jurisdiction to 100-plus plaintiff class actions with an aggregate amount-in-controversy of more than $5 million.

    President Bush would ensure class action awards go to victims - President Bush supports a consumer class action bill of rights that includes: (1) prohibiting courts from approving settlements that discriminate among class members solely on the basis of their geographic location or their status within the class; (2) requiring judicial review of any proposed settlement that requires class members to pay attorney's fees that would result in a net loss to those class members; and, (3) requiring judicial review of settlements that give class members coupons or non-cash benefits as payment.

    Kerry and Edwards oppose meaningful reforms - They have never voted for the above class action reforms and have even opposed reforms that would cut back on profiteering by trial lawyers. Kerry has voted against capping punitive damages for small businesses and capping attorneys' contingency fees for non-economic damages.

    Kerry even authored an amendment that fellow Democrat Senator Ron Wyden called "a lightning rod for additional frivolous lawsuits" - "‘The Kerry amendment is a lightning rod for additional frivolous lawsuits,' Wyden charged. ‘Some of the language is so vague it's going to ignite a litigation derby.' Kerry's amendment went down to defeat yesterday on a 57-to-41 vote." (Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley's Y2K Lawsuit Limit Gaining In Senate," The San Francisco Chronicle, 6/10/99)

    6. Regulatory Reform: President Bush understands that our government must change as our economy changes. He wants to reduce the economic costs of government regulations. John Kerry's record and agenda ignores these costs and the need to adapt. He would implement a host of outdated regulations.

    President Bush is reducing the economic costs of government regulations - The costs of government regulations can be reduced without jeopardizing safety by eliminating redundancy, using information technology and modernizing outdated regulations. So far the Bush Administration has reduced the economic costs of new regulations from $13.1 billion per year in 2000 to $2.5 billion per year in 2003. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, Congressional testimony of John Graham, 4/20/04)

    John Kerry ignores the economic costs of burdensome regulations - He has voted against requiring economic studies and cost-benefit analyses for new laws and regulations.

    President Bush proposes to streamline regulations so factories can install new pollution control technologies - Current "New Source Review" rules require manufacturers and utilities to go through a complex and counterproductive permitting process before they can modify their operations with new technologies. President Bush has proposed a new regulation to streamline this requirement that the non-partisan Resources for the Future says "retards environmental progress and wastes resources." (Howard Gruenspecht and Robert Stavins, "A Level Playing Field on Pollution at Power Plants," The Boston Globe, 1/26/02)

    Kerry's opposition to the streamlined regulations threatens improvements and clean coal technology installations - Kerry opposes the Bush Administration reforms and went so far as to actually join a lawsuit against them. The National Coal Council says uncertainty over the New Source Review policy "has had a direct and chilling effect on all maintenance and efficiency improvements and clean coal technology installations at existing power plants." (National Coal Council, "Increasing Electricity Availability in the Short Term," May 2001)

    President Bush proposes an ********** "cap-and-trade" system to reduce mercury emissions 70% by 2018 - His proposal for the first-ever flexible, market-based cap-and-trade method will cut emissions further, faster, and cheaper than command-and-control alternatives. This approach will protect public health and the environment, maintain a strong and viable coal industry, and ensure low-cost electricity.

    John Kerry supports a command-and-control approach opposed by manufacturers - Kerry is a cosponsor of S. 366 (The Clean Power Act), which relies on antiquated, command-and-control regulations to reduce mercury emissions. It would decimate the coal industry and raise electricity prices for consumers and businesses. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, "under S. 366 (The Clean Power Act)…manufacturers, as well as homeowners and other energy consumers, would pay more for their electricity and natural gas." Moreover, "excessively stringent emission-reduction targets like those found in S. 366 and S. 843 would waste capital dollars that otherwise can be put into increasing productivity, energy efficiency and employment." (Source: NAM, On Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Proposed Rule)

    John Kerry is calling for an unfair tax on businesses that comply with environmental regulations - Kerry wants a Superfund tax that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) opposes, "NAM strongly opposes reinstatement of all Superfund taxes as an unnecessary burden on industry ($15 billion over 10 years), as there is no connection between the taxes and funding for Superfund cleanups." (Source: National Association of Manufacturers, http://capwiz.com/nam/issues/votes/?...&congress=1082)

    President Bush is funding cleanup without the tax - President Bush opposes the Superfund tax because it is broad-based and unfairly targets businesses that comply with the law. Under President Bush, polluters already are paying. In fact, 87% of the cost of new cleanups was borne by Potentially Responsible Parties in 2003 - exceeding the EPA's historical 70%. President Bush has requested significant funding increases to clean up Superfund sites - his FY2005 budget includes $1.4 billion for Superfund, a $124 million increase over last year. Federal spending on the Superfund program is directed at cleaning up "orphan" sites, those sites where there is NOT an identifiable and viable party. (Source: EPA, "Pollution Reduction Enforcement Numbers More Than Double; Agency Using Better Data to Guide Enforcement Initiatives," December 11, 2003)

  20. #20
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    regan is a prime example of the problem; steal from the poor to feed the rich. there was a large military build up, but that only accounts for a fraction of what regan did to screw the common man. trickle down economics? it actually trickled up, and everyone was so excited about the scraps the regan (and now bush) threw to the masses, that no one realized the long term effects until it was too late.
    there are obviously a number of factors that contribute to inflation, but the most obvious of these is when federal debt exceeds that which is allowed by congress(which happened again this year) money has to be printed to pay bills, hence each dollar is worth less. if you put 10000 dollars in the bank at the beginning of the reagan era, and account for inflation, ten years later that money was worth less than 8500. how much do you think that 10000 is going to be worth in ten years based on the record debt bush has created for us?

  21. #21
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    my attention span is about two paragraphs, you think you could give me the readers digest version of these last posts?

  22. #22
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    regan is a prime example of the problem; steal from the poor to feed the rich. there was a large military build up, but that only accounts for a fraction of what regan did to screw the common man. trickle down economics? it actually trickled up, and everyone was so excited about the scraps the regan (and now bush) threw to the masses, that no one realized the long term effects until it was too late.
    there are obviously a number of factors that contribute to inflation, but the most obvious of these is when federal debt exceeds that which is allowed by congress(which happened again this year) money has to be printed to pay bills, hence each dollar is worth less. if you put 10000 dollars in the bank at the beginning of the reagan era, and account for inflation, ten years later that money was worth less than 8500. how much do you think that 10000 is going to be worth in ten years based on the record debt bush has created for us?
    Steal from the poor to feed the rich... How's that? Bush has given tax breaks to the people that PAY TAXES bro. You can't give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes. If you do that is not called a tax break, its called re-distribution of income. there's a big difference. Lets call a spade a spade here.

  23. #23
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    my attention span is about two paragraphs, you think you could give me the readers digest version of these last posts?
    LOL,
    just read the numbered sections bro. Its pretty simple, and I beg to differ your attentions span has been at least 2 hours going back and forth with me

  24. #24
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Steal from the poor to feed the rich... How's that? Bush has given tax breaks to the people that PAY TAXES bro. You can't give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes. If you do that is not called a tax break, its called re-distribution of income. there's a big difference. Lets call a spade a spade here.
    i was looking at an article that showed what bush kerry and kerrys wife paid in taxes last year. w and john, ~30% kerrys wife ~10%. why? because money begets money.

    and this 2 hours is actually small breaks from studying.

  25. #25
    BigMike J's Avatar
    BigMike J is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,511
    wiser

  26. #26
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    i was looking at an article that showed what bush kerry and kerrys wife paid in taxes last year. w and john, ~30% kerrys wife ~10%. why? because money begets money.

    and this 2 hours is actually small breaks from studying.
    Whatcha studying??

  27. #27
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Whatcha studying??
    ethics and scientific research.

  28. #28
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    ethics and scientific research.
    Good luck bro, keep studying... Its nice to debate with someone that's educated or getting educated. Although we seem to disagree, you are a worthy adversary... hehehe

    Big test??

  29. #29
    sigrabbit's Avatar
    sigrabbit is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    842
    Kerry's proposed spending for health care alone totals 683 billion over ten years, compared to Bush's 90 billion

  30. #30
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sigrabbit
    Kerry's proposed spending for health care alone totals 683 billion over ten years, compared to Bush's 90 billion
    Here's the one that would save us millions in a lot of areas... Two lawyers as Pres and VP ewwwwww.

    5. Frivolous Lawsuits: President Bush wants to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits on our economy. Our legal system is too unpredictable and costly. John Kerry (and his running mate) has supported these costs in the past and his agenda will do nothing to reduce these costs in the future.

  31. #31
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    no tests in the class, just group discussions where i dont want to feel like an idiot.

    sig- what is this based on? full socialized medicine? because if it is, you would have to factor in the money saved in the private sector to have an accurate figure. for all i know this could lead to more money for me in the long run.

  32. #32
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Here's the one that would save us millions in a lot of areas... Two lawyers as Pres and VP ewwwwww.

    95% of congress consists of lawyers (not that this is a good thing)

    5. Frivolous Lawsuits: President Bush wants to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits on our economy. Our legal system is too unpredictable and costly. John Kerry (and his running mate) has supported these costs in the past and his agenda will do nothing to reduce these costs in the future.
    bush may want to, but has he done anything yet? im not going to hold my breath. (not that i disagree that edwards is a piece of ****, but come on, bush has had four years to get to it)

  33. #33
    sigrabbit's Avatar
    sigrabbit is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    842
    Honestly, I don't know where the figures come from. Some talk show compared each person's proposals.

  34. #34
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    bush may want to, but has he done anything yet? im not going to hold my breath. (not that i disagree that edwards is a piece of ****, but come on, bush has had four years to get to it)
    Bush is not a Lawyer! He's a fellow MBA! That's who were talking about. And yes he has had 4 years to do it, but he has had the democrats threaten to filibuster everything and anything on his political agenda.

  35. #35
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    I dont se how anyone could blame bush for spending to much money when he had to deal with security issues related to 9/11. If he didnt spend all this money and fight these wars. You same people would be b!tching about that as well. It wouldnt matter what step our president took. The liberals in congress showed what they do. Bitch about things not getting done, when at the same time they where the people that voted against what they claim they support. Just to make the republican party look bad.

    Thats sad when you let polatics get in the way of progress. Preventing a man from doing anything about it just to turn around and b!tch about it. Thats low and only fools stupid people.

  36. #36
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    I dont se (see) how anyone could blame bush for spending to (too) much money when he had to deal with security issues related to 9/11. If he didnt spend all this money and fight these wars (fragment). You same people would be b!tching about that as well (bitching about what exactly?). It wouldnt matter what step our president took. The liberals in congress showed what they do. Bitch about things not getting done, when at the same time they where the people that voted against what they claim they support (huh?). Just to make the republican party look bad (wow, deep and thurough analysis bravo).
    Thats sad when you let polatics (politics?) get in the way of progress (what progress?). Preventing a man from doing anything about it just to turn around and b!tch about it (hasnt he done it?). Thats low and only fools stupid people (like who for instance?) .
    head on back to post #8 and see that this doesnt factor in the defense spending. try reading slower.
    Last edited by sin; 09-09-2004 at 09:52 PM.

  37. #37
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Bush is not a Lawyer! He's a fellow MBA! That's who were talking about. And yes he has had 4 years to do it, but he has had the democrats threaten to filibuster everything and anything on his political agenda.
    so this justifies doing nothing?

  38. #38
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    so this justifies doing nothing?
    That's kinda untrue wouldnt you agree....

    Bush has done nothing since he has been in the White House.... Hmmmmm kind of an abitrary statement don't you think?

    And no it does not justify him from doing what he feels is appropriate for the county. I would like to see him bring everyone together, but that's not going to happen unless he wins another term.. if ever. Remember how pissed off the dems were when he won in 2K? They have done everything in there power to FVck up his policy. No matter what it is they go the other way.. in most cases.

    I won't throw a vauge- sp? blanket statement like "So this justifies doing nothing".

  39. #39
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    That's kinda untrue wouldnt you agree....

    Bush has done nothing since he has been in the White House.... Hmmmmm kind of an abitrary statement don't you think? we were talking about malpractice reform, so this is what im talking about, it wasnt a blanket statement.
    And no it does not justify him from doing what he feels is appropriate for the county. I would like to see him bring everyone together, but that's not going to happen unless he wins another term.. if ever. Remember how pissed off the dems were when he won in 2K (bush won?) ? They have done everything in there power to FVck up his policy. No matter what it is they go the other way.. in most cases. this is true of all politicians, not specific to the current cohort of democrats.
    I won't throw a vauge- sp? blanket statement like "So this justifies doing nothing". good for you.
    ..................

  40. #40
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Ur the one that just threw out that statement bro... not me... am I suppose to read your mind now? Maybe you should be a bit more specific.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •