Why is John Kerry behind in the polls?

[xtc]

I am curious as to why this is. Please try to be objective without starting another Repubs vs/ Democrats thread. Bush has to be one of the most unpopular Presidents internationally in recent history. I am sort of shocked that Kerry isn't trouncing him in the polls.


I wonder do people like Bush's platform better?

Is John just too dry?

Has John Kerry failed in communicating what he stands for to the public?

Are the American public afraid that John Kerry would not handle a terrorist attack as well as Bush?

OPINIONS? (objective as possible please)

[Wezas]

Couldn't be scare tactics....


Originally posted by Dick Cheney
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"


CNN Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/cheney.terror/)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
I am curious as to why this is. Please try to be objective without starting another Repubs vs/ Democrats thread. Bush has to be one of the most unpopular Presidents internationally in recent history. I am sort of shocked that Kerry isn't trouncing him in the polls.


I wonder do people like Bush's platform better? YES

Is John just too dry?YES

Has John Kerry failed in communicating what he stands for to the public?YES

Are the American public afraid that John Kerry would not handle a terrorist attack as well as Bush?YES

OPINIONS? (objective as possible please)

[Betheny]

I can't talk about it, I'm afraid the terrorists will get me.

I think that basically describes it.

Haha jk. How can you ask people to be objective when the thread you started is started subjectively? :?:

[TheEschaton]

I think people are being blinded by pointless shit (Did Bush serve in the Guard? Did Kerry get his medals honorably?)


That, and the propoganda team of Bush's is simply bar none. Kerry's gearing his up, but it's nowhere near where Bush's is.

Bush's guy could be giving a speech on saving whales, and every other sentence would be "Oh, and by the way, John Kerry is a flip-flopper, just like whales, in the water."

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
Couldn't be scare tactics....


Originally posted by Dick Cheney
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"


Or could be that people see right through Kerry and his platform of "I have a magic wand and I'm not afraid to use it"

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I think people are being blinded by pointless shit (Did Bush serve in the Guard? Did Kerry get his medals honorably?)


That, and the propoganda team of Bush's is simply bar none. Kerry's gearing his up, but it's nowhere near where Bush's is.

Bush's guy could be giving a speech on saving whales, and every other sentence would be "Oh, and by the way, John Kerry is a flip-flopper, just like whales, in the water."

-TheE-


LOL.. name a speech where Kerry didn't say he was a Vietnam war veteran at least 42 times.

[Wezas]

Damn, we jumped from opinions/conversation to throwing up retarded photoshopped pictures. Are words to describe your feelings really that hard, PB?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
Damn, we jumped from opinions/conversation to throwing up retarded photoshopped pictures. Are words to describe your feelings really that hard, PB?

Have you known me to ever be at a loss for words? I was merely saving you the effort of reading 1000 words.. you know what a picture is worth right?

Don't be a hater Wezas.. that picture isn't photoshopped.. it's a hack cut and paste MS Paint.

I don't have Photoshop at work.. and it makes me sad. :sniffle:

[Back]

Fear. Everyone just needs to admit it right now. Its what this administration has been all about. A vote for Bush is a vote made out of fear.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Fear. Everyone just needs to admit it right now. Its what this administration has been all about. A vote for Bush is a vote made out of fear.

[Hulkein]

If it's fear, it's a valid one.

We all learned that on 9/11.

Bush won in '00 without fear because we didn't think we had anything to worry about.

Now we do, it's a concern of the people. Bush is better.

[Back]

Fear is what terrorists want. If you live your life in fear, vote out of fear, they’ve won.

[Hulkein]

Like in Spain where terrorists determined the outcome.

I think it's safe to say if they could vote it wouldn't be for Bush.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Like in Spain where terrorists determined the outcome.

I think it's safe to say if they could vote it wouldn't be for Bush.

So you are trying to say that voting for Kerry is a vote out of fear of violence from terrorists?

And then you want to say that if you vote for Kerry you vote like a terrorist?

Thats some of the craziest fucking bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by Backlash]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
I am curious as to why this is.

From the electoral-vote site:


Some bad news for the polling business. Strategic Vision (R) has a new poll in Ohio showing Bush ahead 52% to 43% there. However, there is also a Lake Snell Perry (D) poll showing the race there to be an exact tie, with both candidates at 46%. It is becoming increasingly clear that the pollsters are producing the results that the people paying the bills want to hear. Even pollsters who were once thought to be above suspicion are now suspicious. Gallup, for example, is now normalizing its samples to include 40% Republicans, even though the 2000 exit polls showed the partisan distribution to be 39% Democratic, 35% Republican. There is scant evidence that the underlying partisan distribution has changed much since then. Other pollsters also normalize their data, but most don't say how. Normalizing the sample to ensure the proper number of women, elderly voters, etc. is legitimate provided that the pollster publicly states what has been done.

Plus:

Kerry is too dry and was playing too nice. That's changing. In time?

And Bush is playing on fear and bigotry.

Raven

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Backlash
Fear. Everyone just needs to admit it right now. Its what this administration has been all about. A vote for Bush is a vote made out of fear.

I can't talk about it, the threat level is too high and I might provoke THE TERRORISTS.

From now on everyone should capitalize THE TERRORISTS, because that's what THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION does. Two things to fear.

I hate this 'us versus them' bullshit, which may be one of the biggest reasons I'm against the incumbent administration. An atmosphere of cooperation would do a hell of a lot more.

[Pallon]

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.299.gif

[Ravenstorm]

Case in point:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=268

Raven

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
So you are trying to say that voting for Kerry is a vote out of fear of violence from terrorists?

And then you want to say that if you vote for Kerry you vote like a terrorist?

Thats some of the craziest fucking bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life.

No.

-Terrorism is the major issue on voters mind.

-Bush was here for 9/11, this has formed a security blanket for many voters.

-If Terrorists were allowed to vote, I would guess it wouldn't be for Bush. This does not mean only terrorists vote for non-Bush. I never said that or indicated that.

Edit for better analogy - Suppose an Islamic man is running for president. I would guess many Muslims would vote for him. This does not mean everyone who votes for him is a Muslim.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Bush has to be one of the most unpopular Presidents internationally in recent history. I am sort of shocked that Kerry isn't trouncing him in the polls.
Key word, internationally.
Originally posted by Backlash
Fear is what terrorists want. If you live your life in fear, vote out of fear, they’ve won. Are you suggesting, therefore, that we shouldn't have increased our security following the terrorist attacks?

As for Raven's link: Had I not known better, I would have assumed they were talking about Fahrenheit 9/11.

[xtc]

anyone know what the male female split is for the polls?

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Backlash
So you are trying to say that voting for Kerry is a vote out of fear of violence from terrorists?

And then you want to say that if you vote for Kerry you vote like a terrorist?

Thats some of the craziest fucking bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life.

No.

-Terrorism is the major issue on voters mind.

-Bush was here for 9/11, this has formed a security blanket for many voters.

-If Terrorists were allowed to vote, I would guess it wouldn't be for Bush. This does not mean only terrorists vote for non-Bush. I never said that or indicated that.

Edit for better analogy - Suppose an Islamic man is running for president. I would guess many Muslims would vote for him. This does not mean everyone who votes for him is a Muslim.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by Hulkein]

You really need to work on those analogies because you just suggested Kerry is a terrorist, terrorists will vote for him, but not everyone who votes for him is a terrorist.

The first thing you said was if terrorists could vote, they wouldn’t vote for Bush, strongly implying they would vote for Kerry which further implies people who vote for Kerry are in some kind of league with terrorists. This would offend me greatly if I didn’t realize that even you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Ravenstorm]

Considering how Colin Powell Al-Quaeda is probably stronger now than ever (and guess who let that happen by opening up Iraq for them), they probably like having Bush in office.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The first thing you said was if terrorists could vote, they wouldn’t vote for Bush, strongly implying they would vote for Kerry which further implies people who vote for Kerry are in some kind of league with terrorists.>>

I support Kerry, and I also think that if terrorists could vote, they wouldn't vote for Bush. I am, however, smart enough to realize that doesn't mean Kerry is a terrorist. It means he's a democrat.

[Hulkein]

Backlash, screw the analogy.

If A then B != if B then A.

You, for some reason, believe it does.

[Hulkein]

Just got this in my e-mail. Interesting.



Bush Tidal Wave Among Young Voters


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




President Bush 53%, Senator Kerry 41%

A recent Washington Post/ABC poll shows President Bush leading John Kerry among young voters by 12 points, 53-41%.

Since August, John Kerry lost 20 points and the President gained 18 points--a 38-point turnaround! The following is the polling data of the 18-30 year-old registered voters:

Washington Post / ABC August 1
Bush 35%
Kerry 61%

Washington Post/ABC August 30
Bush 45%
Kerry 53%

Washington Post / ABC September 10
Bush 46%
Kerry 49%

Washington Post / ABC September 28
Bush 53%
Kerry 41%

Ages 18-30.

[Back]

Thank you Hulk and Bob for helping me figure out why exactly the Bush Administration wants you to think that a terrorist attack on our country before the election is meant to sway it the way of Kerry, or, to be fair, just away from Bush. Ok?

The Bush Administration wants you to think that if there is a terrorist attack you’ll want to vote for Bush because the terrorists want Kerry in office. The truth of it is, if there is a terrorist attack, the Bush Administration will have failed to protect us, but you’ll be so scared you’ll vote for him anyway. Beautiful spin, I must say.

[Bobmuhthol]

The only post I read was the one I responded to, so I'm probably putting myself in a bad position.

Terrorists:
1. Don't like Bush.
2. Like Kerry.

That's all I'm saying.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Terrorists:
1. Don't like Bush.
2. Like Kerry.

That's all I'm saying.

I'd go a step farther and say the terrorists don't like Kerry either. Because he's an american. :!:

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Supporters Get Incentive Plans at Bush Rallies (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/campaign/28crowd.html?hp)

A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26vote.html)

Links pwned by NYTimes login screen.

I deleted my post, you might as well.

[Wezas]

News:

Tiny Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040928/ap_on_el_pr/crawford_kerry

In other news: Tiny Crawford Newspaper to be strangely burned down next week.

[Back]

Why did you delete that, TRL? That was good stuff.

[Betheny]

...

Bush hasn't protected us at all... 9/11, hello.

[Latrinsorm]

Hello, pobody's nerfect. (I really struggled trying to find a punctuation that would convey the tone of "hello" I was looking for and failed. Woe.)

Seriously though, it's not hard to be unprepared for something that's unprecedented.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Backlash
Why did you delete that, TRL? That was good stuff.

I just didn't think that it answered the question. I started on it earlier in the afternoon and by the time I got it posted - lots of folks had already addressed it?

I should have kept a copy, but I didn't.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Hello, pobody's nerfect. (I really struggled trying to find a punctuation that would convey the tone of "hello" I was looking for and failed. Woe.)

Seriously though, it's not hard to be unprepared for something that's unprecedented.

It's also not hard to apologize for fucking up, there's good evidence they had indication something was going to happen.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by Maimara]

[DeV]

In alot of ways we set the precedent through what is put out via mass media. All terrorists have to do is watch an American action film depicting some terrorist act and there you set some of the groundwork.
Although, it's almost impossible to predict something like 9/11.

[Hulkein]

I think this picture may just answer the question in this thread. Just stumbled on it.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think this picture may just answer the question in this thread. Just stumbled on it.

No No, I have it here.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/upload/TheRoseLady/505.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Because he's not a very good candidate... and most Democrats never vote.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
No No, I have it here.Wouldn't it make more sense as a Democrats only! drinking fountain? Because, you know, he's pretty much got all the Republican vote he's going to get.
Originally posted by Maimara
It's also not hard to apologize for fucking up,No, no it isn't.
there's good evidence they had indication something was going to happen.All I can say is look at what we have now. We've gone on Red terror alert how many times with nothing happening? Now, you can take that and say Bush (aka Cheney) is firing up the terrortron to keep the masses in check or you can take it as an indication of the inexact nature of the intelligence industry.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think this picture may just answer the question in this thread. Just stumbled on it.

No No, I have it here.



You're right, it depicts exactly why Kerry is losing. Much like his campaign that cartoon is shabbily done and about as succinct as the Bible.

[HouseofElves]

Of course I am objective now, I have pretty much made up my opinion about who I am going to vote for. Kerry has little in the field of planning or ideals...about just about anything, in my mind.
I may not like some of the things Bush has done but I do favor a lot of his values and where he stands on the issues that actually matter to me.

Things could change and I'm not against Kerry at all if I felt like he could do a better job then Bush, I honestly just don't think he can. Plus his wife makes me cringe. Who knows, there is still a while for him to sway my vote.

[GSTamral]

John Kerry lacks enthusiasm, and he lacks fight. He has made campaign promises that God himself could not fulfill.

10 million new jobs? WHERE????? Please don't say manufacturing.

Affordable Healthcare for everyone? His own state ranks near the bottom. If he can't take care of that with his Kennedy friends, how the hell can he do it for the nation?

Bush's economic plan actually makes sense. Bush's foreign policy might as well have been written by a monkey.

Kerry is not the intellectual he is trying to play himself to be. He has more street smarts than most give him credit for. He has shown an almost impeccable ability to BS his way through things and then stab others in the back at the perfect time.

Bush ends up in the same place, but he means well, he's just too stupid to do otherwise. He rushes into things, and doesn't have the patience nor the resolve to get things done the right way.

[TheEschaton]

Like in Spain where terrorists determined the outcome.

I think it's safe to say if they could vote it wouldn't be for Bush.


No, terrorists didn't determine the election, the incumbent president did by blaming it on Basque Separatists with evidence that directly pointed to Al Qaeda. The people were disgusted by his using a terrorist attack to further his own political aims, they voted for the other guys.

As to this whole mess, I renounce the whole thing. My vote for Kerry is already in the mail, but if G.W. wins, I'm not coming back til the fall of '08, to campaign for Hillary.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

<<to campaign for Hillary.>>

You twisted MONSTER GOD NO!!!!!!!!!

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
You're right, it depicts exactly why Kerry is losing. Much like his campaign that cartoon is shabbily done and about as succinct as the Bible.

:lol: Typical Republican parrotting. Kerry just has no personality! Kerry just is a flip-flopper. Let's talk seriously about Bush's record. That is something that we don't see around here...

Here's a clue for you Hulkein, everyone needs to stop looking at who got an airbrush tan, or who swaggers too much and look at the issues. Just making some broadsweeping comment that his "campaign" is shabby is weak. Give us concrete reasons to want to re-elect the President. Stop concentrating 24/7 on whether Kerry looks like a horse, if he windsurfs or if he has clarified his position on a topic more than once, or that people are just voting for Kerry because he's not Bush.

That cartoon accurately depicts the way I see many Republicans. When are we going to get past "I like this guy" and "I dont' like this guy" and determine who is best to lead our country? Here's your chance to actually contribute something that gives those of us who are leaning toward Kerry a reason to give pause.

[Tsa`ah]

I've been trying to avoid the "poll" and "political" topics for a reason. That reason being it's the same argument over and over.

Tamral actually shocked me a little with the unilateral critique, however biased, of both candidates, so there is hope.

It's no secret that I will be voting Kerry because he isn't Bush. I have issues with either choice. My biggest ... neither have nuts.

I'm sick of nutless candidates. Ya, Bush has a woody for war; he still lacks any sizable physical mass in his scrotum. Kerry isn't much better.

Everything we have seen and heard from either candidate is lip service. I don't believe Bush and I don't believe Kerry. Neither has talked about any issue with authority.

You can point to the war on Terror; you can point to improving the job market. Whatever you want to point at ... its lip service.

They don't have the nuts to say ... No more US aid dollars to people blowing each other up. Neither is going to say "We're going to stop corporations from rapping the American consumer". Neither is saying "We're going to penalize the outsourced dollar and make an effort or completely stop American jobs leaving the border".

Neither candidate has said one thing that I believe, and nothing of what I want or need to hear.

I just believe that Bush has fucked over his country and its people enough. He's done enough fucking up; let's see what this ass clown can do.

[Back]

They’ve been asked over and over, TRL, and never step up. They are the ones choosing the lesser of two evils in their minds. They know Bush is a fuck up but have to make Kerry seem worse to justify voting for Bush again. The real reason they are voting for him is out of fear.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral
John Kerry lacks enthusiasm, and he lacks fight. He has made campaign promises that God himself could not fulfill.

10 million new jobs? WHERE????? Please don't say manufacturing.

Affordable Healthcare for everyone? His own state ranks near the bottom. If he can't take care of that with his Kennedy friends, how the hell can he do it for the nation?

Bush's economic plan actually makes sense. Bush's foreign policy might as well have been written by a monkey.

Kerry is not the intellectual he is trying to play himself to be. He has more street smarts than most give him credit for. He has shown an almost impeccable ability to BS his way through things and then stab others in the back at the perfect time.

Bush ends up in the same place, but he means well, he's just too stupid to do otherwise. He rushes into things, and doesn't have the patience nor the resolve to get things done the right way.


Tamral, educate yourself a little bit before you state repeatedly that 10 million jobs are impossible.

http://www.factcheck.org/SpecialReports.aspx?docid=178

"There have been four presidential administrations that have seen the total number of payroll jobs in the economy grow by 10 million or more, including both of Bill Clinton's terms, Ronald Reagan's second term, and (odd though it may seem given the economic turmoil of the times) Jimmy Carter's term."

Your comments about Healthcare are not surprisingly partisan. Is it Kerry's responsibility to provide MA with healthcare? I thought that the President said in his 2000 promises that he was going to make healthcare affordable for low income families and that never happened. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation TEXAS ranks highest for the number of uninsured people. Massachusetts was tied for 47th lowest with 9%..!!!! So Kerry's own state is at the bottom of what? Having the least number of uninsured residents?

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?

Here's a link to review various aspects of Healthcare and the Elections.

http://www.kff.org/Content/elections2004.cfm

As far as the rest of your posts, just more anecdotal comments without any support. I'm tired of doing your research, if you want folks to actually listen to you - please support your arguments with some factual info, otherwise people can draw their own conclusions about your posts.

[xtc]

factcheck.org is not a source of devine revelation from my experience it is as fallable as any other news source or internet site that holds an opinion.

10 Million jobs will be hard to create. Factcheck didn't talk about the increased cost of oil driving up the cost of business, massive outsourcing to China and India of manufacturing, call centre, and high tech jobs.


Regarding health care I currently live in Canada that has a nationalized health care program. One out every 10 tax dollars goes to health care. It costs alot, healthcare is always a problem up here as well. Not alot of doctors are going into family medicine as they complain they aren't paid enough. Many people in major cities don't have a family doctor because of the shortage and they use walk-in clinics. There have been complaints about waiting times to see a specialist and have procedures done like an MRI. That said I do prefer a national healthcare prgram but is expensive

[Wezas]

Originally posted by xtc
I currently live in Canada

[xtc]

and.......?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Backlash
They’ve been asked over and over, TRL, and never step up. They are the ones choosing the lesser of two evils in their minds. They know Bush is a fuck up but have to make Kerry seem worse to justify voting for Bush again. The real reason they are voting for him is out of fear.

I totally agree. I guess that there's comfort in being blissfully unaware to what's really happening. Bush's plan of dumbing down and setting the bar lower is actually working. People don't expect too much.

I'll say this, I live in one of the biggest battle ground states, where voter registration has increased by 250% for democrats and a modest 25% for Republicans. You talk to people here and you can sense that people are unhappy. We have the largest job loss in the country. Our Secretary of State is doing commercials, print and a website designed to inform voters about their particular polling devices and to answer other questions. I'm pleased with the efforts to ensure that our votes get counted. I did a quick look and it seems like about 20 of the 88 counties are using optical scanners or electronic, the rest will be punch votes. Franklin country is the only large country to use the electronic, Cuyhoga and Hamilton will be using punch. I'm digressing... but I am encouraged by what I am seeing and hearing.

[GSTamral]

<<
I totally agree. I guess that there's comfort in being blissfully unaware to what's really happening. Bush's plan of dumbing down and setting the bar lower is actually working. People don't expect too much.
>>

Why yes TRL, let's point to how other administrations had a 10 million increase in payroll and use that as a blanket retard assessment that anyone can do it like its a piece of cake.

Let's quote other sources without understanding an absolute THING about current economic conditions, and point out that because it was done in the past, it can SO EASILY be done now.

Keep googling. UPS Stratcom knows more about the economy than your little blogging and googling sources. We have targets based on estimates of the business.

This nation is not capable of creating 10 million new manufacturing jobs at this point in time. We have the means, but not the infrastructure. Companies can very easily move manufacturing abroad, but it is not so easy to bring it back.

Right now the service economy is growing slowly. Not nearly enough to add 10 million white collar positions over the next 8 years, let alone 4.

Since you want to go off and quote all these sources, perhaps you can actually show a brain past web research, and provide an explanation as to precisely HOW we can add 10 million jobs in this country over the next 4 years, because frankly, I know a whole lot of very wealthy people running very large companies who would LOVE to hear it, because as far as I know, most of our partners are cutting back right now.

If employers arent hiring, I want to know where these jobs will come from.

Wait wait, you know Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001 and Mark McGwire hit 70 in 1998. That must mean ANYONE can go out and hit 70 home runs right?

[Hulkein]

Rose Lady, the thread is 'why is Kerry behind,' not 'Hulkein, please reiterate for the 1000th time why you support Bush.'



Typical Republican parrotting. Kerry just has no personality! Kerry just is a flip-flopper. Let's talk seriously about Bush's record. That is something that we don't see around here...

Here's a clue for you Hulkein, everyone needs to stop looking at who got an airbrush tan, or who swaggers too much and look at the issues. Just making some broadsweeping comment that his "campaign" is shabby is weak. Give us concrete reasons to want to re-elect the President. Stop concentrating 24/7 on whether Kerry looks like a horse, if he windsurfs or if he has clarified his position on a topic more than once, or that people are just voting for Kerry because he's not Bush.

What I said about the cartoon has nothing to do with anything you mentioned. Talk about typical democrat parroting, you're responding to something I never even said, moron.

One reason Kerry is doing so bad is the fact that he has yet to establish a clear message on his campaign.

I understand you're like a wild animal backed into a corner since you're nervous about Bush winning, but please try and keep your composure.

Repeatedly arguing things that have gone unsaid and posting googled articles here isn't going to save your candidate.

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by Hulkein]

[GSTamral]

<<
As far as the rest of your posts, just more anecdotal comments without any support. I'm tired of doing your research, if you want folks to actually listen to you - please support your arguments with some factual info, otherwise people can draw their own conclusions about your posts.
>>>


Yes you're right because I googled this information that Dan Marino threw 48 touchdown passes in 1984, so anybody can do it. John Kerry will throw 48 touchdown passes for the Miami Dolphins next year.

TRL, Maybe if you actually read more than a quarter of an inch below the surface of your divine fact-check, you would see that they qualify their own statement with... well, NOTHING!

Creating 10 million jobs then and doing it now are two entirely different things. If you can't recognize that in your own mind, then perhaps you're the one that ought to do a bit more research. If you want to go ahead and believe everything Kerry tells you, well go ahead. That puts you in the just as stupid as the religious right who believe everything Bush says category.

As for your healthcare research, again, you quote Kaiser as though its Bible. Why don't you try a second check to see where people are using COBRA the most? Why don't you check the better actual indicator, which is number of children under the age of 18 without health care insurance?

You know what, just google those numbers and come back to me, ok?

[Back]

You guys are talking out of your asses again. I’m tired of doing your research for you also. But I will continue for the benefit of the undecideds out there.

Click a link and read for a change or STFU.

http://www.factcheck.org/SpecialReports.aspx?docid=178]

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Hulkein
One reason Kerry is doing so bad is the fact that he has yet to establish a clear message on his campaign.


This is the argument I hear the most consistantly when discussing who to vote for. I don't just mean here, I mean among my peers at work, at home, with friends... Kerry is not stable with his stand on many things. The majority of the time he's debating about how he's not Bush. Well no shit, we see that, but what do you plan to do? Well I'm not gonna be like Bush. I have 4 purple hearts. Well screw you then, ya big hippy. At least I know where I stand with Bush. I may not agree with his methods, but I prefer a president that has an agenda than no agenda at all.

[GSTamral]

You know, whats funny is that 90 percent of what makes a candidate succeed is perception.

Kerry's public perception is worse than Bush's right now. He is being cast as an elitist flip-flopping turncoat, and that is driving more people away from him than the image of Bush as the religious zealot moron.

[Hulkein]

Pretty in-depth scouring research with factcheck search feature and JOHNKERRY.COM.

What do you charge for this Stephen Hawking-esque research? Few hundred an hour?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Just making some broadsweeping comment that his "campaign" is shabby is weak.Of course, saying all Republicans (or possibly any people who support Bush) sound stupid is nothing of the sort.
Typical Republican parrotting.What confuses me is the list you provide has absolutely no correlation to your quote of Hulkein.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Pretty in-depth scouring research with factcheck search feature and JOHNKERRY.COM.

What do you charge for this Stephen Hawking-esque research? Few hundred an hour?

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Its a link to the plan you think he dosen’t have, Einstien.

[CrystalTears]

That seems more of a layout of "things we'd like to do someday, hopefully, cause I wanna be president of student council" than an actual plan, but I could be wrong.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by xtc
factcheck.org is not a source of devine revelation from my experience it is as fallable as any other news source or internet site that holds an opinion.

10 Million jobs will be hard to create. Factcheck didn't talk about the increased cost of oil driving up the cost of business, massive outsourcing to China and India of manufacturing, call centre, and high tech jobs.



LOL, did you even look to see where they got their data? The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Your points about how they failed to include various factors is absolutely moot, other than to point out that rising costs and moving of jobs out of the country is not a new issue - do you think that this president is the only one to face economic barriers? Really now. The assertion was that 10 million jobs were *impossible* - the fact is that they aren't impossible that 4 other presidents did it and Factcheck states clearly that this is attainable by either candidate.


Okay, I'll await a more scholarly and equally non partisan source that you use to sort out the facts from the fiction pertaining to political ads.

Please share.

[GSTamral]

Backlash, you're simply regurgitating more links. No one has argued that John Kerry didn't say he'll create 10 million more jobs, we're simply arguing that it is not possible given the current economic conditions.

<<<
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. Kerry-Edwards will create a new energy and conservation trust fund to accelerate the development of innovative technologies, such as more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, and creating clean, secure, hydrogen-based energy. Kerry-Edwards will also expand the supply of natural gas, assure 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and make clean coal part of our energy solution.
>>>

Straight from John Kerry's "PLAN".
This is a bullshit statement. 20% of our power right now comes from renewable sources. Kind of sets the bar pretty fucking low huh?
Niagara Falls and the Hoover Dam represent more than 18% of our current electricity sources.
Tell me Backlash, how do we EXPAND the supply of natural gas if well.... THERE IS HARDLY ANY FUCKING NATURAL GAS IN THE US? We have an abundance of oil and coal.
Hydrogen fuel cells? Both BUSH AND KERRY OPPOSED THAT ONE JUST 2 YEARS AGO. Way to support your candidate as a flip-flopper.
Clean Coal Energy? Sorry, not before 2020, because Democratic regulations make the permit process take up to 7 years, then add another 3 years to build the boiler, another 2 years to set up the infrastructure to bring coal to the plant, another 6 months to retrofit a fluidized cat cracker to clean the process up, and well... Sorry, Kerry AND Edwards have voted to make this not possible. Are they BOTH flip floppers now??

<<<
A Kerry-Edwards administration will provide relief to middle class families by cutting taxes and investing in health care and education. >>>

Now I love this statement. Everything here says we'll tax you less and give you more. Odd that nowhere in this plan does it say where the cuts are coming from. Is he planning on raising the income tax up to what? 90% on amounts over 200,000 to pay for all these cuts he promises elsewhere?

<<<
The Kerry-Edwards plan will end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to reduce the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, cutting taxes for 99 percent of corporations
>>>

Odd, he voted against the decreasing of the inheritance tax, the decrease in corporate tax, and decrease in capital gains taxes. Shall we get the sandals out now?

<<<
The Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid.
>>>

Another statement I love. Sorry, but we're ALREADY DOING THAT.

<<<
The Kerry-Edwards plan will support more resources and more reform in our schools. The plan will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act so students have smaller classes and more textbooks. The plan will make reform work for our schools, supporting innovations in public schools like smaller schools, all-girls schools focused on math and science, and charter schools. And the plan will invest in afterschool programs so that 3.5 million children have a safe, quality place to go after school.
>>>>

Odd that a senator coming from the state that spends the highest amount per capita on secondary school education, yet where the students in the state rank in the bottom third nationwide would talk about spending more to get a higher quality education. Pouring more money at the problem isn't the solution, the same way that throwing more troops into Iraq doesn't solve that problem either.

<<<
The Kerry-Edwards plan will raise teacher pay, especially in the schools and subjects where great teachers are in the shortest supply, and will improve teachers' professional development and training opportunities. At the same time, the plan will create rigorous new tests for new teachers; provide higher pay for teachers who have extra skills and excel in helping children learn; and ensure fast, fair procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform well on the job, while preserving protections from arbitrary dismissal.
>>>>

Sandal time again. Kerry and Edwards both voted against, with Kerry SPEAKING against testing of secondary public school teachers to ensure that they meet regulations. This was something Bush was touting in 2000 which Kerry and Edwards helped to block. Flip flop flip flop flip flop......


<<
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies. >>

One of the few things I agree on is his approach to foreign policy regarding terrorism.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral

Why yes TRL, let's point to how other administrations had a 10 million increase in payroll and use that as a blanket retard assessment that anyone can do it like its a piece of cake.

Let's quote other sources without understanding an absolute THING about current economic conditions, and point out that because it was done in the past, it can SO EASILY be done now.

Keep googling. UPS Stratcom knows more about the economy than your little blogging and googling sources. We have targets based on estimates of the business.

This nation is not capable of creating 10 million new manufacturing jobs at this point in time. We have the means, but not the infrastructure. Companies can very easily move manufacturing abroad, but it is not so easy to bring it back.

Right now the service economy is growing slowly. Not nearly enough to add 10 million white collar positions over the next 8 years, let alone 4.

Since you want to go off and quote all these sources, perhaps you can actually show a brain past web research, and provide an explanation as to precisely HOW we can add 10 million jobs in this country over the next 4 years, because frankly, I know a whole lot of very wealthy people running very large companies who would LOVE to hear it, because as far as I know, most of our partners are cutting back right now.

If employers arent hiring, I want to know where these jobs will come from.

Wait wait, you know Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001 and Mark McGwire hit 70 in 1998. That must mean ANYONE can go out and hit 70 home runs right?


Tamral,

You are so predictable. I knew we would get more anecdotal responses from you without any sources.

Show us with some FACTS to support your assertions, don't just run down what someone else says as out of hand, and don't provide one single solitary source.

Come on, you claim that you are so adept at the issues, prove it.

I want to learn from you, so give me some good reasons to believe anything you say.

[Back]

TRL said it, so I’m editing my post to say something else.

Records are meant to be broken.

Now, step up, or STFU.

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by Backlash]

[GSTamral]

TRL, you want a non partisan source arguing that 10 million jobs is not possible?

Sure, here's a few of them for you. Go out there, and check the listing of Fortune 500 companies. Find out how many of them are hiring. The last I remember, the number of them hiring is under 70, and those hires are not necessarily within this country.

During Reagan's administration, during Clinton's term, during Carter's term, everyone was expanding. During Clinton's term, many white collar positions were added. During 2000, in his last year in office, the bubble burst, and the layoffs began.

What are the different economic barriers of today?

Sure, here's some of them too:

1) More than 63% of working Americans own stock or mutual funds as a form of savings, as compared with less than 25% in 1991.

2) Right now, inventory levels continue to be high. This means shit still isn't selling. When shit doesn't sell, people don't look to go out and make more.

3) China is Industrializing, and they have assumed control over manufacturing in many of the fields where some work used to be done here.

4) Even some skilled positions, such as programming, is being done elsewhere, such as India.

5) The EU has and continues to compete with the US for some of the white collar positions that used to ONLY be found here.

6) The prices of energy, steel and wood are sky high right now. New Building costs are way up. New buildings are needed for new people to work.

7) Every Fortune 100 company to schedule an earnings call in the last year has been adamant about continuing to consolidate and cut costs. Changing the president isn't going to change the corporate outlook. It never has, and never will.

8) Interest rates are beginning to climb because of inflationary pressures felt from rising fuel costs. Companies that are teetering as to whether or not to re-invest often use LIBOR as the measuring stick.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Pretty in-depth scouring research with factcheck search feature and JOHNKERRY.COM.

What do you charge for this Stephen Hawking-esque research? Few hundred an hour?

We're still waiting for you to bring ANYTHING to the table that gives those of use who are Kerry or Undecided a reason to ponder why we should vote for Bush.

I am amazed at the mudslinging and total lack of content that seems to come about...anything that is posted is called 'Google researching'. I can see why you would be reluctant to give us reasons to vote for Bush...

At least you have been civil, and that I appreciate.


*edited to correct formatting.

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by TheRoseLady]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Whole blurb about economics

Tamral, you said it was impossible. It's not impossible, it's been done before.

Nowhere did you list a litany of reasons showing why NOW that it was impossible, I merely showed you the facts as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about what economic conditions existed then vs. now.

I guess from now on, you can ignore my uninformed posts. And I will ignore your opinions, because that's what they are- opinions.

[Ravenstorm]

There is only one reason why Bush is leading Kerry: Karl Rove is better at character assassination than anyone Kerry has on his team. Rove is a true master. Bush is likely to win not because of anything he's done for America, despite everything he's done to America, because he's painted Kerry as ineffective.

The little cheerleader from Connecticut has the "better" political team so has made the issues meaningless. The reality of the situation has become irrelevant.

Raven

[GSTamral]

Backlash, back WHAT UP?

Back up the fact that 18% of our energy comes from hydroelectric?

Fine, SCR 2003 handbook. the Energy Policy review from 2002 conducted by the Senate should have that figure in it as well.

Coal Boiler Permits currently have an active waiting period of 7 years. To fabricate the boiler itself once that is complete takes a period of 2 years and 9 months for a 500 Megwatt Boiler to a period of 3 years and 8 months for a 700 MegaWatt Boiler.

This would be the typical project plan (excerpted from Foster Wheeler Corp., for the Toscoe Refinery (Carolina Power and Light) near Little River, SC, a 550 MegaWatt Coal Boiler.

heat treatment process for metal/thickening and surface annealing: 94 days/3 months

pre-fabrication treatment/ammonia reduction: 7-14 days

Welding (primary surface and thickness testing): 18 months

Welding/Cold Sealing/Heat Cycle Testing: 22 days.

SCR NOX/CO2 testing (federal regulations): 12 months

Secondary Ammonia Reduction and final testing: 2 months

Railway Station construction: 2 years alloted (has not been completed yet)



<<<
Now I love this statement. Everything here says we'll tax you less and give you more. Odd that nowhere in this plan does it say where the cuts are coming from. Is he planning on raising the income tax up to what? 90% on amounts over 200,000 to pay for all these cuts he promises elsewhere?
>>>

Ok, I don't see where I have to back this up. You tell me where in his plan he says he's cutting back on something significant to pay for this. Why don't you try and analyze the plan and find out where the cutback is coming from?


<<<
Odd, he voted against the decreasing of the inheritance tax, the decrease in corporate tax, and decrease in capital gains taxes. Shall we get the sandals out now?
>>>

This is common knowledge. The vote on this issue in 2000 went along party lines.


<<
Another statement I love. Sorry, but we're ALREADY DOING THAT.
>>>

This is also common knowledge. If you read what the statement says, it says the government will not bill an medicare covered child for medical care. Last I checked, we don't bill children right now.


<<
Odd that a senator coming from the state that spends the highest amount per capita on secondary school education, yet where the students in the state rank in the bottom third nationwide would talk about spending more to get a higher quality education. Pouring more money at the problem isn't the solution, the same way that throwing more troops into Iraq doesn't solve that problem either.
>>>

This information is available from 2 sources. The NEA documents how much is spent per capita, and the Princeton Review contains demographics for testing averages on the SAT/ and SATII tests.

<<<
Sandal time again. Kerry and Edwards both voted against, with Kerry SPEAKING against testing of secondary public school teachers to ensure that they meet regulations. This was something Bush was touting in 2000 which Kerry and Edwards helped to block. Flip flop flip flop flip flop......
>>>

Bush's plan in 2000 asked for the mandatory testing of public school teachers every 5 years to ensure they continued to be qualified. It demanded that they attend a certain amount of training each year, and wanted to hold them accountable for student failures.

This vote never made it to the Senate Floor because it was filubustered by Senate Dems.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Nowhere did you list a litany of reasons showing why NOW that it was impossible, I merely showed you the facts as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about what economic conditions existed then vs. now.

>>>

I would have assumed that common sense would have dictated the claim that any statement regarding his plan would categorize the impact of what it means to AMERICA NOW.

In retrospect, let me correct that statement. In 1984, it would have been possible for John Kerry to create 10 million jobs. Maybe that's what Kerry is talking about. Maybe he thinks it is 1984 and he can go ahead and create 10 million new positions without a problem.

[GSTamral]

<<
There is only one reason why Bush is leading Kerry: Karl Rove is better at character assassination than anyone Kerry has on his team. Rove is a true master. Bush is likely to win not because of anything he's done for America, despite everything he's done to America, because he's painted Kerry as ineffective.

The little cheerleader from Connecticut has the "better" political team so has made the issues meaningless. The reality of the situation has become irrelevant.

Raven
>>>

For once I agree with Raven. But it's not the first time the issues have fallen into the background, and it won't be the last. It's the same way Nixon won, the same way Clinton won the first time, and if Bush wins this election, it will be the primary reason here as well.

[GSTamral]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep29p.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com


And to add an addendum to that, whatever Kerry is planning on doing, he'd best have the debate of his life tomorrow evening. The trends are really working against him at this point in time, pointing to a near landslide victory.

[Back]

Just restating the weakness of your arguments when you provide no sources. I realize you have certain resources at your finger-tips, but not all of us do. Instead of everyone just taking your word for it, or for anyone for that matter, myself especially, it only makes sense to provide some kind of resource to back up your statements. This is an internet forum, and links are the easiest way to show sources.

I trust you on certain things, and agree with some points, but some of your claims really need backing up if I am going to accept them. Just like you should do with anything I claim.

Over and over, on these boards, people make claims about Kerry this, Kerry that, and over and over people cite sources to disprove all the negative statements.

Ok, I just got sick of hearing the same thing from myself so I’ll shut up for now.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by xtc
factcheck.org is not a source of devine revelation from my experience it is as fallable as any other news source or internet site that holds an opinion.

10 Million jobs will be hard to create. Factcheck didn't talk about the increased cost of oil driving up the cost of business, massive outsourcing to China and India of manufacturing, call centre, and high tech jobs.



LOL, did you even look to see where they got their data? The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Your points about how they failed to include various factors is absolutely moot, other than to point out that rising costs and moving of jobs out of the country is not a new issue - do you think that this president is the only one to face economic barriers? Really now. The assertion was that 10 million jobs were *impossible* - the fact is that they aren't impossible that 4 other presidents did it and Factcheck states clearly that this is attainable by either candidate.


Okay, I'll await a more scholarly and equally non partisan source that you use to sort out the facts from the fiction pertaining to political ads.

Please share.

I am not sure what it is that you find funny. The fact that millions of jobs were created under the watch of other presidents doesn't mean Kerry can create 10 million jobs. How you can say that factors like Oil price, interest rates, and outsourcing wouldn't affect the creation of jobs? I am surprised you would say this is a moot point, nothing could be further from the truth.

[GSTamral]

Because XTC, Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927. If he were alive today, he could also easily hit 60 home runs. Other factors don't count.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Because XTC, Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927. If he were alive today, he could also easily hit 60 home runs. Other factors don't count.

Tamral,



:talktohand:

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by xtc
I am not sure what it is that you find funny. The fact that millions of jobs were created under the watch of other presidents doesn't mean Kerry can create 10 million jobs. How you can say that factors like Oil price, interest rates, and outsourcing wouldn't affect the creation of jobs? I am surprised you would say this is a moot point, nothing could be further from the truth.

I already went over this, so I'll say it again. (Any responses from Tamral will be summarily ignored.) The assertion was that 10 million was impossible, I merely showed that it was not impossible and that it is indeed possible. The statistics come from our own government. It has since been asserted that ..."any moron would have realized by osmosis I can only assume, that the original author meant under current economic conditions. "

Apparently the current economic conditions are so horrendous compared to other presidential terms that it is not possible for these jobs to be created. This just further reinforces that Bush must go...the fact that our country is in such dire straits should be more than enough for people to vote him out. No more years.


I'm still waiting for who you turn to for non-partisan analysis of political ads. I'm always interested in reading sources that present both sides.

[Hulkein]

Yes, Bush is responsible for everything bad in the economy. Not the cyclical aspects of the economy, Clinton's economic bubble bursting, the WTC attacks, or the huge corporate scandals.

And of course all the good aspects of the economy right now (Unemployment rate being as low as Clinton's at the same time in office, home ownership rate, etc) would have happened anyway.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by xtc
I am not sure what it is that you find funny. The fact that millions of jobs were created under the watch of other presidents doesn't mean Kerry can create 10 million jobs. How you can say that factors like Oil price, interest rates, and outsourcing wouldn't affect the creation of jobs? I am surprised you would say this is a moot point, nothing could be further from the truth.

I already went over this, so I'll say it again. (Any responses from Tamral will be summarily ignored.) The assertion was that 10 million was impossible, I merely showed that it was not impossible and that it is indeed possible. The statistics come from our own government. It has since been asserted that ..."any moron would have realized by osmosis I can only assume, that the original author meant under current economic conditions. "

Apparently the current economic conditions are so horrendous compared to other presidential terms that it is not possible for these jobs to be created. This just further reinforces that Bush must go...the fact that our country is in such dire straits should be more than enough for people to vote him out. No more years.


I'm still waiting for who you turn to for non-partisan analysis of political ads. I'm always interested in reading sources that present both sides.

The statistics you posted didn't reinforce your argument at all. I made no pro Bush point. You haven't proved these jobs could be created at all. At least Backlash linked to Kerry's plan where he outlines somewhat how he believes these jobs will be created. Personally I don't think even his measures will suffice.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Apparently the current economic conditions are so horrendous compared to other presidential terms that it is not possible for these jobs to be created. This just further reinforces that Bush must go...the fact that our country is in such dire straits should be more than enough for people to vote him out. No more years.
>>>

How stupid can one person possibly be?
Because we can't create 10 million jobs means our economy is horrendous.

How is it possible that a person of higher intelligence cannot comprehend the difference between the job market and the economy?

Someone here badly needs to take some very introductory courses on financial economics.

We have a growing economy, profits are back up to normal and in some cases, above normal levels in most sectors. It's just that industrial expansion is moving elsewhere, to other nations. And not just in nonskilled labor. DUUUUUHHHHHHH

[GSTamral]

Here's a sample corporate strategy, so maybe some people with an open mind may get some sort of understanding.

As a company, we are automating as many positions as humanly possible to compete with rising labor costs in the United States. These positions, often which have high turnover, can be eliminated and replaced with automation. Our company is continuing to expand at a record pace, but we are doing it elsewhere. We have moved data centers into Europe. We are expanding operations throughout Asia. This involves hiring lots of people over there, where labor costs do not justify any form of automation.

We make more money by saving costs here, expand into an economy that is expanding with us by hiring more workers there, and profits and overall money in the system goes up.

Maybe, once you develop an understanding of that, you will realize why 10 million jobs in the US is not a realistic number anymore. Even the 5% tax break to companies to hire more workers from the US is a minimal gain at best. Companies are saving a LOT more than 5% by moving manufacturing and other general labor overseas. Period.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Maimara

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Hello, pobody's nerfect. (I really struggled trying to find a punctuation that would convey the tone of "hello" I was looking for and failed. Woe.)

Seriously though, it's not hard to be unprepared for something that's unprecedented.

It's also not hard to apologize for fucking up, there's good evidence they had indication something was going to happen.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by Maimara]

Hindsite is always 20/20. We had a good indication after we knew what the final outcome was.

[xtc]

I am with GSTamral on this point. I work as a business consultant and I agree with his points. This economy is very different from the ones of the past. The globalization of trade has changed things as has technology. There is a concept in economics called constructive deconstructionism. Escentially it means when you remove a technology of jobs from an economy that economy will adapt in order to survive and will create a higher technology to create jobs in. Even if this is true I doubt 10 million of them will be made in a few years, of course I could be wrong look at Internet jobs in the 90's.

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by xtc]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Hulkein
Pretty in-depth scouring research with factcheck search feature and JOHNKERRY.COM.

What do you charge for this Stephen Hawking-esque research? Few hundred an hour?

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Its a link to the plan you think he dosen’t have, Einstien.

Making fun of people using the old "Einstien" moniker makes me laugh.

Loudly.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Hindsite is always 20/20. We had a good indication after we knew what the final outcome was.

Please. 9 out of 10 generals saying what a quagmire we'll be in if we invade Iraq wasn't enough? Or when his own father was President not invading Iraq to take out Saddam because exactly this would happen wasn't good reinforcement?

Hindsight wasn't needed. A brain was. And yet Bush is still going on about how he would do everything exactly the same and how everything is rosy and wonderful and proceeding exactly on course.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
It's not impossible, it's been done before.The record for most wins in a season by a baseball pitcher: 59.

The chances of a baseball pitcher today getting 29, let alone 59 wins: 0.

Or even better, President Clinton was elected President before. However, it is impossible for him to be elected President again.
The assertion was that 10 million was impossibleActually, here's the assertion: "This nation is not capable of creating 10 million new manufacturing jobs at this point in time."
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
9 out of 10 generals saying what a quagmire we'll be in if we invade Iraq wasn't enough? Or when his own father was President not invading Iraq to take out Saddam because exactly this would happen wasn't good reinforcement? PB was responding to a comment about 9/11. And you can't really use Bush's "I'd do it again" against only him, because Kerry said the same thing.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by xtc
The statistics you posted didn't reinforce your argument at all. I made no pro Bush point. You haven't proved these jobs could be created at all. At least Backlash linked to Kerry's plan where he outlines somewhat how he believes these jobs will be created. Personally I don't think even his measures will suffice.

My argument was to prove that it's possible. Sorry if you felt that I didn't prove it. We'll agree to disagree.

Heh, the link I provided, you "felt" was not a good source. I could only imagine what sort of response I would have received linking to Kerry's site.

I guess all in all, it doesn't matter to you, since you admitted that you are Canadian.

Again - since you do not trust Factcheck.org what sources DO you trust?

[xtc]

The link you provided only proved that past Presidents have done it, not that Kerry could and how he would. It was that I said.
I have said that I live in Canada, I do hold US citizenship as well as Canadian and I will be voting in November.

I was asking how is he going to create these jobs considering the economic factors I mentioned among others?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
PB was responding to a comment about 9/11. And you can't really use Bush's "I'd do it again" against only him, because Kerry said the same thing.

Ah, my mistake. I see no need for Bush to apologize for 9/11 so assumed the topic was Iraq. And the context that Kerry said that in was greatly different from Bush's 'we're doing splendidly'... I can't call it a party line since not even his party is buying into it. Fantasy.

Raven

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by xtc
The link you provided only proved that past Presidents have done it, not that Kerry could and how he would. It was that I said.
I have said that I live in Canada, I do hold US citizenship as well as Canadian and I will be voting in November.

I was asking how is he going to create these jobs considering the economic factors I mentioned among others?


I have answered you, XTC. If you don't agree with my posts, then by all means post your theories and supporting documentation about how Kerry wouldn't be able to create the jobs.

I guess that your silence about what sources you turn to for non-partisan information ...don't exist?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
And the context that Kerry said that in was greatly different from Bush's 'we're doing splendidly'... I can't call it a party line since not even his party is buying into it. Fantasy. True enough.
Originally posted by TheRoseLady
If you don't agree with my posts, then by all means post your theories and supporting documentation about how Kerry wouldn't be able to create the jobs.All you did was what I did: google up a bit of history. Unlike you, I found two examples where an event occurring does not necessarily make it possible for the event to occur again. I can say Tom Glavine's going to win 50 games, but I can't point to history as proof that he can without showing how the vast majority of differences between then and now are either unnoticeable or in his favor.

[Back]

As usual, more rhetoric. You all lose hard for two reasons.

1. No conclusive evidence to support your claim.

2. Your argument is stupid. “Just because someone did it before dosen’t mean they can do it again.” WTF? Every Olympics records are broken. EVERY OLYMPICS. Every year, sports records are broken, either by someone else, or within a player’s own personal best. Convince me this is not true, then shoot me in the head for being an idiot.

You also screwed yourself over because now, not a single one of you who used this lame ass argument can claim with any credability that Bush can create 10 million jobs in the same amount of time.

Reagan did it with the shit pile he was handed. Clinton did it. Someone has to do it right now and I don’t hear Bush or anyone who supports him saying he will.

[GSTamral]

There is no losing hard. I believe I have provided plenty of evidence to support how 10 million jobs will not be created. It is bullshit straight from the bull's ass. Had Bush made the same claim, it would STILL be bullshit.

During Reagan's second term, most of the large companies in America were hiring. More importantly, many were hiring manufacturing positions.

During Clinton's first term, the SAME was the case PLUS the dot com surge, which employed millions where there were previously only thousands.

None of the trade agreements we currently have were in effect. There was no competition from the EU for white collar international operations work.

Most importantly, the 4 LARGEST employers in america are STILL cutting costs. Believe you me backlash, UPS, Walmart, etc.. really couldnt give a shit and a half who our president is. Corporate strategy is determined by profits and the will of stockholders (read that to mean mutual funds) They don't give a shit who is elected. Cutting costs means cutting costs. That means cutting labor. They aren't fucking hiring anyone. If the big companies, which employ more than 50 percent of our workforce arent hiring, then to create 10 million jobs would truly be the miracle of Jesus.

If you believe John Kerry is this Jesus figure, by all means, I guess common sense isn't going to convince you otherwise.

Bush hasn't claimed he will create 10 million new jobs because the people working for him have a clue about the reality of the situation. (god knows he doesn't because he's a moron).

This nation does not have the foundation to bring the steel mills back online. Maybe, just maybe, if the coal industry gets back into full gear, it would employ a few hundred thousand... But wait, John Kerry and his butt buddy, Senator Kennedy have put a 7 year permit wait for new coal plants. Hrmmm, guess it won't happen under his watch.

wait wait I know. John Kerry will hire 10 million new government employees to further increase the overhead of this country, all while reducing corporate taxes, increasing money for new military technology, increasing welfare spending, increasing education spending, increasing spending for medicine and healthcare, increasing the size and scale of the EPA, all while eliminating the federal budget deficit, eliminating the trade deficit, and increase all kinds of funding for fighting terrorism, all while re-establishing our international positions with our allies.

Jesus indeed. Praise the Lord Kerry, Chad, John Kerry is truly a miracle to us all!

Now, leaving this fantasy world of John Kerry's plan, I believe Kerry will do a better job across the board in foreign policy, and he can't possibly be worse than Bush in Iraq. Domestically, his plan is as full of shit as anything I have ever seen, and his flip-flopping on positions regarding energy and the corporate tax structure only further my belief that he is unfit to command a staple gun, let alone a country.

[Ravenstorm]

Your problem is that Bush is demonstrably no better. Even if you consider the economy to be improving and ignore the deficit which is just going to keep growing, what small upswing there has been isn't going to last under Bush. In order for the economy to do better, the people who make up the economy must do better. And they aren't.

The middle class is shrinking. And while some of them have certainly moved into the upper class, even more have dropped into the lower classes. So they are producing less. And many of them will require more public assistance just to get by.

Add in the skyrocketing cost of health care which Bush is doing nothing about. Increase medicaid since the number of people who can't afford any insurance is increasing. And even those who can afford the cost of insurance themselves will be spending less on everything else as more and mroe resources are devoted to health care.

The America people, taken as a whole, are worse off and that will just increase under Bush's policies. And that means the economy will worsen as they do.

Raven

[Back]

One of my favorite bible stories is the one where Jesus lays the smackdown on the money changers.

If 10 million jobs is impossible in 4 years, we’re fucked. Its been done before under worse conditions. Kerry wants to stop the job export loophole and use that money to lower corporate tax to create jobs to the tune of $12 billion a year over the next four years.

You talk about spending. The money is there. Well, it used to be, until someone gave it all to the upper income tax bracket. Kerry will increase middle-income tax cuts, and reduce upper income tax cuts to cover spending on things that will be to the benefit of the entire population.

Bush’s employment numbers are the worst in the past 20 years or more. If our economy sucks that bad that its impossible to make 10 million jobs, why the fuck would you want Bush for four more years. Yeah, lets cut taxes for the wealthy, that sure seems to help.

As for the top 4 Fortune 500 companies not hiring, thats bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. You can not sit there and tell me Walmart is not hiring. Go to any company on the Fortune 500 list and look at the career section of their websites and come back and tell me they are not hiring.

You need to admit its not impossible and if you seriously want to see it happen, then you need to look for a way to do it. Here is a suggestion. Back the guy who says he will.

[CrystalTears]

Can someone explain how jobs can be made when tax cuts for corporate and upper classes will be reduced, and they're the ones who produce said jobs? I'm genuinely curious.

[TheEschaton]

No, taxes for corporations will be cut.....not tax cuts for corporations.

The whole idea is to make it more attractive to have jobs here than to ship them overseas, to say, India.

I, personally, don't know how feasible it is, because I don't see it as much as a cost issue as a talent per cost issue. Even if the cost was the same in India, or even more, the talent you get there is much better.

Some pro-India guy once sent me an article on how great India was, including a study which I thought was interesting, which said that it was shown that people who had called Indian call centers were, in general, more satisfied with the service they got, then when they called American call centers. They said the operators were more friendly, knowledgable, and helpful, on average. The only one where the Indian call centers got lower than the American ones (understandably so) was whether the caller had trouble understanding the tech. But Indian accents can be trained away, and they're getting better.

This is not an argument for shipping jobs there, it's just saying to me that I don't know how much corporations are going to want to cut and run on India, because they've got a good thing going there - especially if they already have the centers up and the people trained. It might prevent corporations from shipping jobs overseas, but I don't think it'll bring anyone back. Corporations love feasibility studies. Unless it's made illegal (is that Kerry's position, when you say "closing the exporting job loophole"?)

But then again, economics has always been the weakside of my debate in the political arena. And I actually prefer it that way...."Money, it's a crime."

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

Thanks, TheE. :)

[Back]

I’m no economist, so I can only tell you that Kerry intends to stop the loophole corporations who hire overseas use to not get taxed on the earnings they make in those countries. When that money comes in, he wants to use it to cut corporate tax, not increase it.

As for cutting upper income taxes, look at how good those have done over the past four years and you have an answer. Yeah, if we cut the upper income taxes, where are those jobs?

[Edited on 9-30-2004 by Backlash]

[GSTamral]

<<
If 10 million jobs is impossible in 4 years, we’re fucked. Its been done before under worse conditions. Kerry wants to stop the job export loophole and use that money to lower corporate tax to create jobs to the tune of $12 billion a year over the next four years.

You talk about spending. The money is there. Well, it used to be, until someone gave it all to the upper income tax bracket. Kerry will increase middle-income tax cuts, and reduce upper income tax cuts to cover spending on things that will be to the benefit of the entire population.

Bush’s employment numbers are the worst in the past 20 years or more. If our economy sucks that bad that its impossible to make 10 million jobs, why the fuck would you want Bush for four more years. Yeah, lets cut taxes for the wealthy, that sure seems to help.

As for the top 4 Fortune 500 companies not hiring, thats bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. You can not sit there and tell me Walmart is not hiring. Go to any company on the Fortune 500 list and look at the career section of their websites and come back and tell me they are not hiring.

You need to admit its not impossible and if you seriously want to see it happen, then you need to look for a way to do it. Here is a suggestion. Back the guy who says he will.

>>>

You need to get some facts straight here.
It takes nearly half of the total income tax revenue to pay for the interest on the federal deficit. Income taxes account for less than 20% of total government revenue collected. He didn't give all that much back to the rich (a drop from 40% to 36%) as you and so many other staunch dems like to claim. Compared to the overall economy, its positively peanuts.

You talk about companies hiring overseas and not paying taxes in the US. Please get your facts straight regarding the law.

If a company invests abroad, they must pay taxes wherever that money is earned. If they bring any remaining profits back into the US, they must pay any difference between the US tax and the foreign tax if the US tax is higher. That's not a loophole. That's part of international business standards. If I hire workers in China and build a plant there, and then use the profits from that building in China and don't bring it back here, yes, you DONT pay US corporate taxes.

As for your looking up the hiring pages, well of course they are hiring. Companies aren't cutting back at every position.

If your company employs a million people, 40-50,000 of them are retiring or leaving the company each year. If 40,000 leave and you only hire 37,500, by all standards, you are cutting back. Those 37,500 are not newly created Kerry jobs. There is a net loss of 2,500 actually.

Look at payroll trends as opposed to simple hiring notices.

Bush's unemployment numbers is a misnomer. The unemployment number right now is about the same as it was under Clinton.

You have to begin to understand that we are a service economy now.