Bush/Kerry thread
 

I'm not sure if there's a thread about them yet, but I figured I could start a new one if there is.


Ok, feel free to express you're thoughts on either politician and what you think about their politics. Personally, I think Kerry is playing dirty politics and trying to confuse people.

One of my main issues with this guy is that he's trying to confuse the stupid people out there about taxes, job creation and the current unemployment rate.

Current tax laws allow American companies to defer paying taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until they bring it back to the United States. If they keep the money abroad, they avoid paying U.S. taxes entirely.

Kerry would require companies to pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allow to defer it. The new system would apply to profits earned in future years only, not retroactively.

Kerry also would lower corporate tax by 5%. Kerry stated he would also create 10 million new jobs.

Ok lets examine why this is BAD FOR THE ECONOMY.
Lowering taxes on corporations .. thats good. More jobs will be created from that, as well as higher pay. Ten Million jobs is also good.. but is it possible. That many new jobs would send unemployment well under 3% thus causing eventually causing work shortages in areas. Higher pay would result in low skill jobs. OK your asking where's the bad... well higher pay for low skill jobs equals higher prices in products. Higher cost of living which results in MORE POOR PEOPLE. Which results in less customer demand. Which results in LAYOFFS.. thus unemployment is back. Unless you start shipping jobs overseas (like we are doing now).
Now taxing corporations that send jobs overseas will have a similar effect. It will not stop jobs from being sent overseas as these jobs are most likely low skill level jobs. What will happen is loss of jobs in the US as taxes are collected from those companies. Does the 5% tax cut out way this.. HELL NO. 5% off of what currently is 38%= 33% (estimate) But in dealing with the loop holes 33% of what is currently 0% =33%. In essence products sold in the US could see a rise in cost of producing DOUBLE possibly (not in all but some). Rising prices lowers customer demand. Lowering customer demand equals LAYOFFS. Thus creating MORE UNEMPLOYMENT.

Kerry isn't trying to help the American economy or the Americans. Kerry is simply trying to confuse you and gain votes. This stuff is BASIC ECONOMIC stuff.. that any sophomore in college should be learning.

Thus why I'm voting for Bush along with my folks :)

Well, when it comes to economics.. technically both parties are bad. Republicans are bad and Democrats are even worse. Thats just the nature of politics. Separation of Economics and Politics should be a constitutional amendment. Libertarians seem to understand economics better in the sense of... they let the free market work itself out. A hands off policy that only intervenes when markets step on legal toes.

Bush is just as bad tring to scare people with terrorism. It worked in 2002 so why not use it again. The FBI and CIA and the now homeland security deal with the threats not the President. They would do the same job if Kerry was in office. Kerry is not going to go in and say ok lets stop hunting terrorist. He might not pull an Iraq like Bush did though. Everything coming out and the two former aides speaking out about him don't make him look any better about it. I think the US would be as safe now if we didn't attack Iraq. Yes it's good we got out the bad guy, but if your going to war at least make that your primary reason instead of claiming he has WMD's to justify it to the world. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat to the US than Iraq ever was since they are working on Nukes. Iraq hadn't even come close since Bush Sr. Kerry and everyone never complained about hunting terrorist that pose a threat to us in the near future and thats why no one ever complains about Afganistan. To say any party would just let terrorist over run us is just silly.
Least John McCain hasn't stooped to calling Kerry weak on terrorism.

i'm just posting to get in before this thread gets locked or deleted or moved.

Kitso
KS 361 times i'm voting for Coach K for president

I like the way Kerry at one point in time agrees with every single issue...he's a seasoned politician...nobody i'd want to see in the whitehouse...he's so full of crap its a shame...

From what I understand- Kerry's economic plan would not increase taxes on families earning 200,000.00 or less. There is an increase in taxes within his DEcrease in taxes for world wide corporations because any American Company with overseas ties would end up being double taxed (here and there)...and that has never happened in US history. I LIKE it for companies that are outsourcing even though many will disagree.

I'm not sure about the logic on increased wages. I recall in the early 80's when the petro-chem bust occurred, all suffered. Yes, you do run the risk of inflation, but when people earn money, they spend money. Business flourishes and growth is possible.
We need more jobs, we need more production.

NAFTA SUCKS! I believe BOTH supported it.

I am with those who believe Clinton handed a fading economy to Bush, so I believe we are seeing an economic recovery of the Republican's making.

It's pretty obvious that Clark is lying about the state of security pre 9-11. I think much has been learned by the seat of our pants.
We have so far to go. Bush didn't hesitate to recognize it was an act of war against us. I do not have the same confidence in Kerry.
Along these lines-His comment about being supported by world leaders makes me think WHY is he in communication with these people at this time, AND do we really want someone in the White House that OTHER countries desire to lead us? Lead us where, into their pockets? Both candidates NEED to take a closer look at our borders-immigration and our PORTS!

I do not like the way Kerry has changed and re-changed his political positions depending on his audience. I think he's "green"
and his wife represents everything he's supposed to be against?!?:rolleyes: I may not like everything Bush does, but you pretty well know where he stands.

Plus, as one talk show host put it-Kerry LOOKS like a Frenchman, and I'm still a little ticked off at them!:p

I hadn't thought of that.

and how the hell is that again?

Interesting concept, though I don't see how it could possibly work. What would you propose? I agree about the libertarians understanding certain economic issues much better than the leading two parties.

bethany, I wonder if it's because they don't have as many interests to answer to.

I thought Perot had a pretty, darn good grasp.

well.. i think for now i'm going to vote for nadar... i live in new york which is a pretty democratic state and i think that nadar needs the funding for his next political campaign. however... with that said- i am a pretty liberal democrat.... i have been pretty confused with this whole kerry thing... i have read articles and stuff that you guys have posted and i've been keeping up with news and things like that....

i know the things htat matter to me really ... education... abortion... terrorism and the war on iraq... relations in the middle east- israel and palestine... and the environment... (thats all i can think of right now... and those aren't in any particular order)

i read an interesting article on msn about the topic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4609893/
i thought the part about bush pushing for internet for all of american considering this was a gore platform... also he is for oil exploration in alaska... OF COURSE HE IS... he isn't going to try to help fund other sources of electricity- he's just going to destroy the earth some more...

the thing about kerry's wife that i read in another thread- hmm as james said- i don't really think thats an indication of what a job kerry can do... she just happened to be born in another country... maybe i just don't get the significance... thats just my opinion...

Seperation is completely impossible but maybe a way of giving a bit more power of purse strings to economic advisers. Cause its obvious no else in washington on either side of the aisle can control their spending.

I'm not sure whether I should be laughing or scratching my head.

Where was he wrong? Don't ask where he was right, that's the easy way. Oh well, that would spoil the thread so I'll just say one word...NAFTA!