Bush Says Kerry Tax Plan a Threat to Workers

[Kibbo]

First of all, I wish to restate that Bush's economic policies have been confused from the start, neither satisfying the standards of Keynsian stimulation with which they were sold (due to the high savings rate to whom they were primarily directed), nor satisfying the supply-side conditions which would increase productivity in the long-term (which would arguably be the result of the savings rate issues mentioned above, but are invalidated by the deficit needed to implement them in the current economic climate).

Short answer: Deficit (arguably) good, if given to low savers. Tax cut to high savers good, if there is no deficit.

All that being said, outsourcing is not the major problem facing the employment market. It is, in fact, a minor inconvenience; that has potential long-term benefits.

A policy that was purportedly stimulative in the Keynsian sense has no business existing in an economy that is expanding (in terms of GDP), especially when inflation is a potential issue. There should be no deficit right now, except what is neccessary to resolve short-term security issues. A roll-back on the tax cuts would only be prudent.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: robbase29a
Uh... cpumaster... A tax (or penalty) for outsourcing? What is this.... communism?.. Isolationism at best. Maybe a tax relief for keeping workers here would be a better idea, At least it would be more moral. Sorry... outsourcing is a fact of life. We need to deal with it. And before all of you get your panties in a bunch from what I just said, check this article out Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing This is a NON-partisan article about the subject at hand.

Bush has a plan to help americans deal with it by helping people train (or retrain if necessary) to get better jobs. The funny thing about all of this, is that former president Clinton touted the same unemployment numbers when he was running for re-election. I know that there are caveats to the overall unemployment rate, but this (what the liberals like to call) "misleading" information is blown way out of proportion.

Actually, the President of the United States has very little to do with employment in the country. In fact, unemployment is a lagging indicator and has more to do with the previous person in office than anyone else. There is one thing for sure... Kerry's proposed tax increases won't do a thing for unemployment.

Meh. The Heritage Foundation is a neocon propaganda tool..

"The Heritage Foundation celebrated in 1998 the 25th anniversary of its establishment in 1973 by three right wing billionaires: Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon Scaife and Edward Noble, together with right wing activist Paul Weyrich. By 1995, it had an annual budget of US$25 millions."

and

"By all measures, Heritage has much to celebrate. From across the political spectrum, opinion appears to be unanimous that the organization has been singularly effective in accomplishing its mission of dragging American politics to the right. "

To call the Heritage foundation non-partisan is ridiculous.

 

[Kibbo]

Right wing is not synonymous with neo-con.

 

[GrGr]

From the link (read it, it's very interesting):

"Policies advocated by the Heritage Foundation are very likely to become the policies of the Bush Administration.

In our view, the Heritage Foundation with its offshoots is the single most pernicious influence in politics in the United States of America today. It is the organisation which formulates Neoconservative policy and then puts its marketing machine to work to manipulate public opinion to accept that policy as desirable. In effect it is today the propaganda apparatus of the Bush regime."

And

"As Weisenberg points out, Heritage clothes itself in the apparatus of the think tanks. It has a distinguished roster of Fellows and Scholars. But it is at one and the same time a policy making group and a marketing organisation.

It is a unique example of the exercise of the skills of formulating, or at least of packaging, policies and then marketing them to the public with techniques akin to those used for selling washing powders. In its last annual report it stated that it was supported by 87 top USA corporations."

You are right in that in a broad sense right wing does not equal neocon but since the Bush administration is neocon at heart and so many right wingers have allied themselves with the neocons I think it is fair to call the current supporters of this administrations policies neocons (the New Right that emerged in the early 1970's, the Heritage Foundation was established in 1973). Of course the day the neocon policies have failed is the day most present supporters of the Bush regime will claim that they never were neocons.

The Heritage Foundation is definitely neocon.

 

[GrGr]

Examples of the Heritage Foundation's neocon agenda:

"On Fighting Terrorism
"Several specific efforts should be made: (1) to avoid linking terrorism to root causes such as human rights or poverty that distract from the core issue of fighting terrorism; (2) do not press for a precise definition of terrorism, which is very controversial"

Blueprint for Freedom: Limiting the Role of the United Nations in Post-War Iraq
With effective resistance stamped out in Iraq, coalition focus has turned to cooperative rebuilding efforts with the Iraqi people. In dealing with the U.N., which is now seeking to take an active role on the ground, coalition leaders must be careful to limit outside involvement to purely humanitarian tasks."

Heaven forbid that the Bushies would give a precise definition of terrorism (see their fuzzy "War on Terror") :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The economy is cyclical - we're undergoing a transition that is shifting jobs around. It doesn't matter who is president next, the cycles will continue. Kerry himself has stated that if things continue the way they are now, 10 million new jobs will crop up over the next ten years.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well it would seem that partisans can use the same data yet arrive at opposite conclusions.

Case in point, from your linked article:

Whatever the statistics may eventually show about the overall quality of current hiring, Kerry's remarks will still ring true for millions who haven't found jobs as well-paid as those they lost. The day after Kerry spoke, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released results of a "displaced worker" survey conducted every two years.

It found that during the three years ending last January, 5.3 million workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years. Of those so-called "long-term displaced workers," 20 percent were still out of work and 15 percent had left the workforce entirely at the time the survey was conducted in January. Only 65% were re-employed.

Most who found new jobs weren't making as much as they did before. Of those who had been in full-time jobs and who were also re-employed in full-time work, 57% were earning less.

What about those statistics?

This is no "cycle" as the Neocons in here would try to make anyone believe.

It's a de-valuing of America. That the almighty dollar is above all costs especially people.

People are what made America great and now it is people that are tearing America down.

The really sad part is they are proud of it as evident in here 🙁

 

[conjur]

Whatever happened to the investigation into the alleged misuse of the Treasury by the Bush administration to evaluate Kerry's tax plan??

http://www.thecarpetbaggerrepo...m/archives/001569.html

 

[EagleKeeper]

Small business owners may make $200K per year.

That is possibly the gross or net for the business, not the net income for themselves.
The business will still need to pay the employees and the owner.

Both pols love to throw out numbers without detailing where they come from.

One can sift through any gov report and extract a number that justifies a stance, ognoring numbers that contradict/adjust the first number.