John Kerry: I was an alter boy

That sure explains a whole lot

I didn't watch them.

Let me guess. Both sides claim victory after a rehash of the same old shit?

To put it in EQ terms, it was like a Velious-era duel between two badly geared paladins. Kerry was more accurate, but his attacks were rendered nearly irrelevant by Bush's fungi tunic anyway. Bush just flailed wildly and scored a couple of hits in the long run.

Whatever. Either way, we're in for four years of steaming shit.

Better get your hip waders on then and find something to plug up your nose!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/hsicons/psIM1.gif

I admidt that after watching all of the debates, I personally feel Kerry is the better man for the job. I have started to really like him. That being said, the country is so damn polarized right now nothing will get accomplished, and its tragic. I look forward to the race 4 years from now -- I really think McCain will do a great job, and while it'd be nice for equality sakes for Clinton who'll probably be running on the Democratic ticket I'd still vote Republican.

I quite like that metaphor Will,heh.

The one thing that really stuck out to me, was when they were talking about abortion. Bush showed how he loves to oversimplify things for his own means.

(from this transcrpit) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html)

BUSH: "I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them. "

KERRY: "Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother. "

KERRY: "Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe. "

BUSH: "Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?

And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. "

I actually laughed out loud when I watched him do this. I'm sorry, but "it's pretty simple when they say" or "And thats just the way it is" aren't very good arguments when you have logical facts saying otherwise.

And listening to Bush try to act like he was a good enviromentalist was just hilarious. I haven't heard that much BS fit into 2 minutes in a long time.

I'd give Kerry supporters more credit if they'd -stop- saying, "Oh he presented himself much better" as a reason they think he won the debates so far. It irritates the hell out of me. If you think he has a better stance on economic, environmental or whatever policies, fine, it's your opinion, they're both morons. But, "Well Bush stuttered alot..." does not strike me as a sound reason to base your political decisions on.

Clinton is going to run again? Intresting. One has to wonder if Rush Limbaugh encouraged this so his show can get a ratings boost. Since Clinton left office its a good bet all those Right wing windbags, such as Rush, have been lacking new things to attack these days since they more or less have things exactly how they always wanted them to be.

Just a little food for thought. Last year Kerry Co-sponsored Senate Bill 1431. The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003."

In this bill he wants to ban assault weapons and shotguns with pistol style grips. In West Virginia when he stood up and proclaimed "This is my rifle" trying to rally the gun enthusiasts that exact shotgun he is holding is banned by his own damn bill.

As a career firefighter I actually switched parties to caucus for John Kerry because of his stance on firefighting and funding for the nations first respnders. The more I learn about him the more I regret my choice. I dont believe Bush is the greatest President either, but I feel much safer with the security of our nation in the hands of Bush then in the hands of Kerry.


Oh ya not sure what this had to do with last nights debate...but I wanted to get it out there...Hopefully Bush will bring this out in next wednesdays debate.

Rigin

Clinton is going to run again? Intresting. One has to wonder if Rush Limbaugh encouraged this so his show can get a ratings boost. Since Clinton left office its a good bet all those Right wing windbags, such as Rush, have been lacking new things to attack these days since they more or less have things exactly how they always wanted them to be.
You obviously do not listen to Rush or O'rielly, etc.... I do, daily, The head-in-the-sand liberals give these guys PLENTY to talk about day in and day out. Bush won by a far margin. Of course i'm a freemarket conservative/borderline neo-con. So i'm right...=)

There are 2 Clintons very active in politics. Only one of them can run for president next time around :) I was refering to gender equality.

Polling Report seems to throw this last debate off as a tie, surprise surprise. Bush supporters said Bush, Kerry supporters said Kerry.

Now I'm not really a man of politics. In fact, I know just about nothing at all. But from watching the second debate, I'll say this: John Kerry is a moron. I don't think I can remember one question that was asked where he actually gave a legit answer. Everytime a question was asked, he would bring up something from the last question and use it to bash Bush. Every single time. I don't want a president that focuses on bashing there oppenent rather than comming up with their own strategic answer. But maybe I'm just naive and don't know what I'm talking about. :D

I don't want a president that focuses on bashing there oppenent rather than comming up with their own strategic answer.

So you will not be voting in the election? Or, are you backing one of the alternative parties? Because that is pretty much all the two main party candidates have done for the past year.

But maybe I'm just naive and don't know what I'm talking about.


Yea, that about sums it up.

Not that it matters since Maylen is like 7 and can't vote. At least that's what Kein told me.

So you will not be voting in the election? Or, are you backing one of the alternative parties? Because that is pretty much all the two main party candidates have done for the past year.

I saw Bush answering his questions to the best of his ability and only putting Kerry down when Kerry would put him down. What I'm saying is I'd rather pick the guy that went to the debates with the idea of winning the public over with their offerings than the guy that went to the debates with the intent of picking the other person apart. And yes, I'm 7. :(

You obviously do not listen to Rush or O'riellyDamn straight. At least not anymore. Former co-worker listened to that shit all day at work. I prefer to listen to music on the radio, not some dolt bitch all damn day, so we had to rotate radio useage. The guy is like a parasite, feeding millions off of the political landscape just as Micheal Moore does. They are two sides of the same coin, and both of them probably could not exist without the other.

As for the Clinton thing..does it matter if there is a Bill or Hilary attached to the Clinton(TM) brandname? In all honesty it would be cool to see her run. It might be nice to have a woman run, or an African American or a Latin American, instead of yet another WASP from South Bibleliona. Will they win? No. It would still be a change of pace well welcomed than yet another middle aged white dude in a powersuit with a red tie with a pretty much identical resume as the guy before. Both the democrats and GOP can go to hell for all I care. Vote *Libertarian!

*thats Libertarian (http://www.lp.org/), not liberal. Largest 3rd party in the country.

The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif individual liberty and personal responsibility
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

Actually, the LP is the not the largest third party. The Greens outnumber us by at least several-to-one, and we're a very distant fifth in terms of campaign funds after Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and the everpresent Lyndon LaRouche.

I think the LP goes by number actual elected members for their claim to number 3, not so much by number of members and how much money they have.

I'm with Lummus. I wish the Libertarian Party could actually get into the debates and have their point of view heard. They have been trying for years without any success. Sadly the two party system and the electoral college have virtually locked out all serious chances of a third party candidate. Also lately the two party system has become too polarized in recent years. Republicans are leaning to the far right and Democrats to the far left. As a result the middle road is almost non-existant forcing a practical coin toss choice for who leads this country.

Sadly, this election year is about voting for the percieved lesser of two evils. In the end I believe Kerry is the lesser of the two evils. I don't really like either candidate.

I think it's a riot though that the Libertarian Candidate was arrested recently during one of the presidential debates. =p

I thought Bush started out quite strong and faltered later; Kerry started weak but did better in the 2nd half. Both finished well, but the questions suited a lightening of the mood. Bush took better advantage of times when he had the last word; Kerry recognized this, I think, which is why he took the tact of responding to previous questions at the beginning of some of his responses. Bush went dad's route of over-using the "L" word; Kerry didn't over use his "I have a plan..." but after the last couple debates I wish he'd just use "I will..." instead. I'm not sure if Bush relied on major distortions like he did in the last debate (both candidates misuse facts, of course, but Bush seems to exceed Kerry in that dept of late); factcheckers will have the results in the next couple days.

From the debate:
Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those ex-a-gger-ations.
From two years ago:
I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.I don't see the debate changing the dead heat we're in, and I'm glad they're over. If Kerry can survive whatever October surprise(s) Rove has in store he has a shot at winning, but it's a coin toss right now.

I'm with Lummus. I wish the Libertarian Party could actually get into the debates and have their point of view heard. They have been trying for years without any success. Sadly the two party system and the electoral college have virtually locked out all serious chances of a third party candidate.

It isn't the 2 party system keeping the Libertarians out, its the fact that there aren't enough Libertarians to get their candidate in. You need a certain percentage of the previous years votes (Nader hit it in 2000) to get federal funding in your following campaign. Ross Perot was able to go from an independant to getting into the debates because enough people cared about him.

Its grassroots politics, you need to get involved and get your neighbors to get their neighbors to get their neighbors to get involved. Had it not have been such a tight race in 2000, the Green Party could have put up a fight in 2004 with their federal funding and what not.

Nader did not hit the 5% required to get federal funding, I believe.

Your job got outsourced?

Go back to school loser!

Nice.

Nay, Nader got somewhere around 3%ish in 2000 I believe, a little short of the 5% needed for Federal Matching Funds

It isn't the 2 party system keeping the Libertarians out, its the fact that there aren't enough Libertarians to get their candidate in. You need a certain percentage of the previous years votes (Nader hit it in 2000) to get federal funding in your following campaign.

That's because the Libertarians (and basically everyone else) has to get a fairly substantial number of signatures per state (and per district in some states) plus pay fairly large fees just to get on any given ballot, much less ALL of them, which the D/R parties get on by default. The big two may give us lots of incompetent politicians but they are very effective political machines, and have had a long time to throw up barriers to competition.

In addition Nader was still short of the required minimum by several million voters, and Perot only got where he did because of his own personal fortune. How are marginalized parties that may only have active followings in a few states supposed to make that? They can't, which is exactly what the Republocrats want.

Errr it's how the Republicans want? Traditionally 3rd party folks steal votes from the Dems as I recall it.

Infact, there are many who blame Mr Moorer for Gore losing in 2000 due to him stumping hard for a 3rd party canidate.

Fandros

If by traditionally you mean in the last election, sure. In general, no. Libertarians would be more likely to be potential Republican voters, Greens potential Democrat, American Communist Party potential Democrats, Natural Law potential Republicans, etc.

You should read posts before going on your Liberal-is-a-four-letter-word tirades. <---anon rep point dude 3#

What in my post was liberal blasting you cowardly jackass?

I was just asking questions.

As for this election, I think you'll find the Dems attempting to block 3rd party potential this year. They are at risk, not the Republicans.

Ahhh and thanks Malse for your post, you are correct and Nader does represent a threat to the Dems so my logic stands for the short count , if not the long.

Fandros

And to back my claim that it's the Dems blocking Nader from getting on the ballot...

http://www.krqe.com/topheadline.asp?RECORD_KEY[TopHeadline]=ID&ID[TopHeadline]=6942

SoooOOo please to be researching before ya rep point me lil one...

Fandros

Oh hell, link is misdirecting../chuckle


Fandros

Date Posted: 9/20/2004 | Time Updated: 9:30:24 AMJudge withdraws ruling blocking Nader from N.M. ballothttp://www.krqe.com//storyimages/blank.gif
http://www.krqe.com//storyimages/blank.gif
http://www.krqe.com//storyimages/blank.gif


[/url][/b]
[b] ("]
Location: ALBUQUERQUE
Source: KRQE News 13 / AP
http://www.krqe.com//images/BigLocal/spacer.gif[url=")
<SPAN class=ninepointtext>A campaign spokesman for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader says Nader is back on the November Second general election ballot in New Mexico.

Kevin Zeese says that's the case now that a judge has withdrawn her ruling blocking Nader from appearing on the ballot.

State District Judge Wendy York also recused herself from the case today.

She had ruled Friday that Nader didn't qualify as an independent candidate in New Mexico because he was running as the nominee for minor parties in other states, including the Reform Party.

The state Democratic Party had challenged Nader's candidacy.

Campaign finance records show York contributed $1,000 to Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign in April.

Bush basically said, if you lost your job to outsourcing you need to go back to school to get an education, a college diploma. So that implies that if your job got outsourced you must not have a college diploma. Does he realize that IT, CS and EE jobs are being outsourced to India? I am an EE, I lost my high paying manufacturing job when it was outsourced to Thailand and Singapore. Then we had the Unemployment office come in and tell us how to sign up for the ROP program and get some college money so I can go to a community college. I already have a fucking EE from a state school. Bush is such a dumbass.

Phelonius

I have a plan.

In my plan.

The President doesn't have a plan.

My plan.

If I hear John Kerry say Plan one more time I am gonna vomit. How many times can the man say I have a plan without telling what that plan is?

Kerrys response wasn't any better. Empty promises that cant be met. You know it as well as I do.

Ibudin

"I believe I offer tested, strong leadership that can calm the waters of a troubled world."


kid tested, mother approved? this sounds like a poem, not a statement

You're right, Fandros, in that the Dems have more to lost than the Reps if Nader is on the ballot. To this end, the Republicans have been lobbying and engaging in other methods in order to support Nader's position in the race, while the Dems have been working against it.

It's funny, these debates...I heard Kerry give numerous specifics in regards to his...proposals (to use a different "P" word). In return, Bush has said he's made no mistakes but there are many things wrong in the country that need righting, yet which he's done nothing about with his Republican congress. My favorite point along these lines came during the discussion on minimum wage, where Bush stated, "Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum wage proposal that I supported." Then why didn't he get it passed?

But to the point, Kerry has outlined (in the 1.5-2min intervals given him) his...ideas. I don't know how well they'll work (especially if he faces a Republican congress), but I look forward to the chance to give him a shot.

I watched the debate last night but the only thing that stands out in my mind is the snippet Thormir just posted about. Min. Wage.

The question was would you raise it?

Kerry, yes to $7+
Bush, went off on a tirade about education but never answered the question.

/boggle

The rest of it was just blah blah blah blah.......Min. Wage doesn't affect me per sea b/c I am lucky and have a nice paying job. But it does affect other members of my family and I'd like to see something done, either raise it or lower the pay roll tax.

Your family would garner more from lowering the payroll taxes than to raise the min wage. Raising min wage is just eye candy to sooth the masses. It does more to raise inflation and therefore outpacing any gains. While lowering the taxes gives them more of their own check to spend. Regardless, anyone above the age of 20 earning min wage is likely never going to raise much above that without some sort of real education, and for my taxdollar it would be tradeskill schooling.

Just another pandering statement by Mr Heinz-Kerry.

Fandros

I'm always suspicious of proposals to raise the minimum wage (for the reason you cite), but there is support (http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410web.pdf) for a moderate increase by hundreds of economists. Perhaps it will help unemployed IT professionsals while they're following Bush's advice and taking advantage of No Child Left Behind.

Regardless, anyone above the age of 20 earning min wage is likely never going to raise much above that without some sort of real education

So true. Thats just one reason why a vote for Bush is a bad idea.

I'm gonna applogize in advance for not having links or sources, because I'm at work and the article is at home, but in one of the most recent trade magazines for educators (my mom is a principle in Haverford Township, one of the suburbs of Philadelphia -- she forwarded it along) was a 3 page plea about how the magazine tries to stay politically neutral but they gave up, that the race is so close and that all teachers regardless of their belief regarding any other politics should vote for Kerry because 4 more years of "No Child Left Behind" would cripple the education system in America. I'm gonna have to bring it into work and scan it and post it.

On a slightly related story, my sister was telling my mother and I about how that the downfalls and horrible politics behind "No Child Left Behind" was a prevelent focus in every education class she is taking this semester at Kutztown University, in Pennsylvania. When I asked an ex-girlfriend about it, it seems that all of the Pennsylvania State Schools (well at least West Chester, Kutztown, and Penn State) have a very strong anti-Bush sentiment in their Education Departments ... I imagine you have to have screwed up pretty hard to get to the point that you can't find a single public school educator in America that thinks your education plan is doing good, let alone that it is (as some people concider it) "the worst thing to happen to public education".

Take all the above how you want to take it. Honestly the education part doesn't effect me much so I've never put too much weight in all of that. However, the 2 trillion dollars that Bush wants to add on to his already massive deficit over Social Security -- that affects me a whole hell of a lot. But then again, I could speak out against Bush on almost every one of his platforms. Honestly, what do people see in him?

Ya'll do know who Sponsored the No Child Left behind bill right?


Fandros

Your family would garner more from lowering the payroll taxes than to raise the min wage. Raising min wage is just eye candy to sooth the masses. It does more to raise inflation and therefore outpacing any gains. While lowering the taxes gives them more of their own check to spend. Regardless, anyone above the age of 20 earning min wage is likely never going to raise much above that without some sort of real education, and for my taxdollar it would be tradeskill schooling.
Hang on now. If you raise minimum wage and give everyone more money across the board, or you lower their taxes and give them more money across the board... What's the difference? Either way, the money they make is devalued.

I hate things like minimum wage. It stinks of socialism. Making money is not about education or minimum wages at all. It's about getting up off your ass and doing something. People can't learn or be given initiative.

Oh I agree Sanchek totally. But like it or not min wage is here to stay.

I can't recall the exact dynamics, but there was a study shown that raising wages was more harmful than lowering payroll taxes. It doesn't end up the same at all.

Fandros

"Ya'll do know who Sponsored the No Child Left behind bill right?" Kerry

Now here's my question for you: "Ya'll do know who Fucked Up the No Child Left Behind bill by not funding it appropriately, thus greatly hindering the entire education system by placing limits, requirements, but not the means to reach these requirements?"

I think its a sign of intelligence to back something you think would work, but when you realize the person put in charge of carrying out the plan fucked it up and its time to change.

Many small businesses that are teatering on folding up would close the doors if there was a minimum wage hike..so a wage in some cases is better than no wage at all.

Actually it was Kennedy - Kerry wasn't it?

Don't get me started on that combo. The Sr sponsor of that bill shouldn't be walking freely let alone sponsoring hugely pork ridden bills.

Last thing the education system needs is massive money thrown at it without first reforming it completely. Making it accountable and making the money stick to the kids it needs to stick to.

Here local money flew into a school, and instead of updating their schoolbooks those in charge decided to spend the money on fucking cheerleader outfits.....

Fandros

Kelraz, that's a load of shit and you know it.

Bush has increased education spending in 4 years more than Clinton did in his entire 8 years. Here's a link to NCLB and general education funding: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html Bush has increased education funding by 60% (he actually understated it at 49% in the debates)!

Funding is not the problem with NCLB (in fact I think Bush has been too generous in federal funding of education -- education is a state responsibility in my opinion). To the extent there is a problem with reforming education it comes from piss poor teachers who do not want to be held accountable for their inability to teach. The unions back them and have been very critical of any attempt to measure school performance and give parents a choice where to send their students. Your "trade" magazine is simply a union rag putting out lies to protect teachers who don't want to be held accountable.

Here is my experiences with Min. Wage.

1. My sorry ass father who had one too many extra marital affairs for my mother and she divorced his sorry ass got off very lucky while I was growing up b/c of Min. Wage. They based my Child Support on Min. Wage at that time and as it increased I would get increases. As it turns out $2.35 isn't all that much, I don't know the specifics but it equalled to $25 a week for $100 a month, it only increased a time or two but I was 18 in the early 90s and that wasn't much.

2. Work Study. Whooo whoooo I was a poor kid going to school on scholarships and loans but I got this thing called Work Study. It was the only $$$ I got b/c my mom couldn't afford to send me any. So in between playing 2 sports (which was also paying for my education), doing 18-21credit hours a semester and my 15hr a week work study I made it. Finally my Sr. year it was raised to $4.25.


3. My mother is basically retirement age but due to many factors she continues to work in NC where she makes min. wage. I'd like to see her make more $$$ so I don't have to keep sending mine to help her make it.

Raising Min. wage wouldn't put $$$ in my pocket today but I can sympathize and empathize with those it would affect. This so called tax cut and tax break that everyone was supposed to see, it didn't affect me of course I don't have kids and I'm no longer married.

I hate things like minimum wage. It stinks of socialism.

Like it or not, our economic system would deteriorate significantly without many of its socialist values, including minimum wage. Anti-trust laws, food and drug regulations, and workplace safety standards are all pretty important to an effective (and safe) economy.

Furtivus, I will take your point of view as one that has no appreciation or true understanding of what goes on in schools under NCLB. I will speak only of elementary level because my wife is a second grade teacher. She works in a neighborhood that is lower class with 18 of 20 of her students being ESL (english as a second language). The other 2 are asians who speak perfect english and have a desire to learn. You talk about poor teachers not being willing to accept responsibility? Have you ever tried to teach a second grader math when he can't even spell his own fucking name properly? I will put it very non PC for you. Minority children have shitty language skills, their parents don't help them at home, their parents don't discipline them at home so they come to school and disrupt class all day long. I can tell you one thing about the funding for NCLB, whereever it is, it sure as hell isn't in the schools. I commend teachers for putting up with the shit they have to. Standardized testing is a piece of shit. It compares schools incorrectly. My wife's school has kids, who, on a scale of 1 to 5, start at 1. By the end of the year they make it to 3. Then the school in suburbia has kids that start at 3 and make it to 4. School with 4 is better than school with 3, regardless of progress.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for capitalism of education. Let the smart kids take the ball and run with it and the bottom of the barrel can drown and make minimum wage forever. But unfortunately, under NCLB, it is educational socialism. We have to stifle the smart kids while the dumb kids suck up all the resources with remedial learning. Maybe this is only in California where there are hoardes of immigrants, but I think your assesment of teachers is offensive at best. People get into the teaching industry because they have some affinity for helping people. I have not yet met a teacher that gives less than 110%.

Phelonius

Fildien, you clearly have no idea what the effects of a minimum wage are. There are so many more factors than "putting $$$ in people's pockets". Always best to let the economy run itself where it is possible, and the more we raise minimum wage the more unemployment will go up.

Obviously it has its purposes, but it has way too many branching effects on the economy to say that we will raise it to 7+ if we are trying to solve the unemployment.

Like it or not, our economic system would deteriorate significantly without many of its socialist values, including minimum wage. Anti-trust laws, food and drug regulations, and workplace safety standards are all pretty important to an effective (and safe) economy.
You're right, of course, that if it were to suddenly go away today; there would be a huge mess.

Yet, I think that if we had never gone down that road, we'd be better off today. I think for every case of it serving the greater good, you'll find many more of it rewarding and encouraging complacency. We complain about the 1% controlling 90% of the wealth, but we do all we can to continually dumb down the 99% of have nots. We're headed for a crash.

Humm Interesting, so President Bush is sending more money than any other President to Education. Is NCLB fully funded yet, I know that was an initial bitch by some in congress, who if memory serves actually apropriates the money in spending bills? nice link, with some interesting reading thanks.

Rev

That's a valid argument. I might argue that we really couldn't have gone down any other road, or if we hadn't gone down that road back then, we would have later anyways. It's hard to say. ;)

You're absolutely right I will be the first to admit I am no Greenspan and I will not claim to know how things are affected or what ripples cause what. I wasn't even trying to do that, I would never be so bold. I was however giving examples of my dealings with Min. Wage and I can bet you many Americans feel the same way.

But more importantly I don't WANT to know all about the interworkings and dependencies of policies on the economy. That is not my job, that is the policy maker's job. So, I listen to what they have to say and see if by chance their ideals fall in line with my own and if they do then they get my vote. If raising the min. wage is so bad then someone needs to convince the rest of America it is.

Perhaps you in your infinite wealth of knowledge of the Economy can forecast us a growth chart showing its' effects on inflation? Gah, you missed my point totally...I said either raise the min. wage or lower the payroll tax, either way people need to get more $$$ in their pockets I know many people are struggling with price of gas and other commodities.

And I don't think opening up our borders to let transitional workers come and take more jobs is a good thing either. But, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[QUOTE=Sanchek]Hang on now. If you raise minimum wage and give everyone more money across the board, or you lower their taxes and give them more money across the board... What's the difference? Either way, the money they make is devalued.

QUOTE]

I think the point is that if you actually earned the money you were more productive. Lowering taxes doesn't put a strain on the employer..... raising minimum wage does.....

Lowering taxes for minimum wage workers won't do much, unless you do so rather drastically. Most minimum wage workers don't pay a whole lot in taxes already.

Furtivus, I will take your point of view as one that has no appreciation or true understanding of what goes on in schools under NCLB.Wrong. My wife is a public teacher. My mother was (recently retired) a public school teacher then principal. I hear a lot about NCLB. Lack of funding is nowhere near their chief complaint regarding education.

As for Fildien, raising min. wage and lowering payroll tax are not 2 sides of the same coin. Raising minimum wage is an expense borne by employers and affects their ability to hire minimum wage workers. Estimates of the effect varies, but "the average estimate by labor economists is that for a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment among those affected drops by 5 percent." http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm (cites at link).

Lowering the payroll tax would put more money in people's pockets at the expense of the federal budget. Do you suggest cutting social security or medicare benefits (the likely target for a payroll tax cut)?

Fildien, education is the way to put money in people's pockets. People working at the minimum wage will always have to struggle. It is (as should be obvious) the minimum, the lowest wage one can achieve. No matter what happens that will always be the case.

How much education did your mother get? Even if she got very little due to circumstances beyond her control, employers simply can't take that into account while hiring and determining pay.

From how you've described your mother (retirement age, working at minimum wage), she would probably be among the first fired if it went up. And lower taxes for those working at the minimum wage, as was stated by Roliel, would not do much because so little is taken already.

I think the point is that if you actually earned the money you were more productive. Lowering taxes doesn't put a strain on the employer..... raising minimum wage does.....
I think most of that demographic is definitely going to see either as the same thing. They're getting a paycheck in their hands at the end of the week, and that's the part they care about. Whether they make $200 by getting $6.25/hr and less taxes, or by getting $7/hr and paying more taxes; it's still $200 in their hands at the end of the week. They're not more productive and haven't earned anything more.

Say everyone making $6.25 gets an artificial pay boost though:

Now, everyone has a few extra bucks at the end of the week, but wait... Now they can afford to blow more money and just barely make that payment for the nicer apartment across the street. So, they move. Man, these Democrats really improved their lives. Of course, now that everyone can afford it, the price will go up quickly to match the new demand. Meanwhile, the place they used to live has raised prices to what the nicer place used to cost, because everyone has "more" money there too.

Of course, while all that has been happening, the value of everyone's savings has dropped by as much as the paychecks increased, granny's social security check isn't covering her new higher rent, and the guy who owns the apartments just got a boost in his net worth.

The gap just gets wider.

Everyone just needs to get in on the stock market. The corporations are the money machines, and there is always talk about how corporate profits are up, but the wages earned by families are not keeping pace on average. Well, it would seem that if the system is screwing you in one direction, it might be best to buy in on that system at the level those making the money reap their rewards. If companies make profit, their stock values increase. Many employees at places that offer the option to buy stock as part of their compensation do very well. Home Depot is a prime example. Many who work there....no longer actually need to. Their stock has made them millionaires, and they are fork truck drivers, cashiers and material delivery drivers.

Also, its been quite a while that Americans lived within their means. Everyone borrows too much and saves very little, and if anything causes strife when balancing the checkbook is finacial irresponsiblity. We all buy shit we don't really need and usually can't afford because society seems to pressure us into this. Society is also not going to take care of you when you are old. Buy what you need, but not always what you want. Save money and invest. Never buy shit new if you can get a pre-owned in as good a shape for alot less. NEVER finance stuff that depreciates alot, such a computers. In the military, I have met both sides of the coin. Those that blow all their pay on booze and junk, and those that blow some of it but save the rest. There are a few examples just on my base of those that have portfolios well worth over a million dollars while only in their mid to late 20s. Most people know that military pay isn't that great either, so there really is no excuse for those that make alot more. Mostly the country needs to learn more about managing what money they have before the government gives out more.

Does he realize that IT, CS and EE jobs are being outsourced to India? I am an EE, I lost my high paying manufacturing job when it was outsourced to Thailand and Singapore. Then we had the Unemployment office come in and tell us how to sign up for the ROP program and get some college money so I can go to a community college. I already have a fucking EE from a state school. Bush is such a dumbass.

To me that's the worst problem of all. Most of the good manufacturing jobs have already gone offshore. Now that the US economy is becoming more IT based those jobs are going to.

So my question to Mr. Bush is just what kind of jobs should we be doing? I guess the GOP thinks that a career in fast food is good enough for the average american.

I guess the GOP thinks that a career in fast food is good enough for the average american.There is more to life than IT, you bunch of nerds. Think about this a second. First off there is always going to be a demand for certain things HERE IN THE US!

1) Contruction: Home building and commercial plus the maintence and all aspects related to that. Ship building and roads also fall into this. Oh no, you might get dirty but you can make very good money and not be stuck in a cubicle all day. (You all should have seen Office Space by now)

2) Healthcare: Anything related to geriactrics is going to be HUGE. The Baby Boom is turning into the Old Fart Boom and they want to live forever with the disposable income to back them up. Plus there is all the other problems such as what that fast food we will all be working to serve does to our waistlines.

3) Engineering: Civil, Mechanical, Structural, Architectural. Any kind of engineering that related to large stationary objects. Its was americans who designed and built the factories for the outsourced jobs. It was americans that designed and built many of the latest batch of super tall modern building in Asia, along with planning their cities.

4) Aircraft/Aerospace: Europe does well here too, but we yanks still invented the airplane, defined the helicopter industry and have gone faster and farther than anyone else.

5) Research: Self explainitory. If there is no one doing the math and the science, we are fucked.

6) *Added*: Media. If its copywritted its going to be produced here.

The draw back is, you will need an education for most anything other than fast food. It seems us Americans need to use our brains in order to see gains.

These are not all jobs people seem to be training for either but they PAY VERY WELL and there will be a big demand. Some aspects of IT were the latest good paying "easy" job. Now some of the more mundane aspects of IT, the ones that trained monkeys can do, are being outsourced. Anything that entails doing the same thing over and over again can be outsourced.

In regards to IT some of that trend is reversing. Dell is in the process of moving its CS and tech support back to the US because of numerous customer complaints regarding bad service.

Lowering taxes for minimum wage workers won't do much, unless you do so rather drastically. Most minimum wage workers don't pay a whole lot in taxes already.
This makes a really good point..... basically the minimum wage (which is entry level and NOT meant to stay on forever) pay basically ZERO taxes..... and people who make NO money, get money back.....

I think most of that demographic is definitely going to see either as the same thing. They're getting a paycheck in their hands at the end of the week, and that's the part they care about. Whether they make $200 by getting $6.25/hr and less taxes, or by getting $7/hr and paying more taxes; it's still $200 in their hands at the end of the week. They're not more productive and haven't earned anything more.

Okay but what you have done in the process is strain the employer..... it is never a good idea to make it harder on buisness or you run the risk of "down-sizing" "outsourcing" or even just closing up shop........ then you now aren't making $7 and hour or $6.25 an hour or $5.15 an hour.... you making $0 an hour because you don't have a job.

What's the minimum wage in the USA now? Is it different in every state or set to the same in all states? How many percent of the workers earns the min. wage? How much is the avarage wage?

Thx if anyone takes the time and answers these questions. (it has nothing to do with the debates or the campaign im just curious)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Google to the rescue!

In the past two years, under the Bush tax cuts and inflation, the costs I pay for a roof over my head and heat/electricity/water have outpaced any increases in my annual salary raises/COLA's.

I make in excess of $20 per hour, which is not yet minimum wage. Putting more money into someone's pocket is one argument; but, there is also much to be said about an administration that favors those who take more money out of it.

In regards to IT some of that trend is reversing. Dell is in the process of moving its CS and tech support back to the US because of numerous customer complaints regarding bad service.

And then General Electric, a company 5x bigger than Dell, has had my dad flying all around the world this past year to set up a lot of their outsourcing.

the costs I pay for a roof over my head and heat/electricity/water have outpaced any increases in my annual salary raises
A lot of people over the last few years have been able to purchase homes because of the low interest rates. I purchased my home about 5.5 years ago (before recession) with a 30 year loan and a modest interest rate. Like many people, I refinanced during the interest rate sag, not only did I lower my P&I by ~$80/month and got rid of PMI, I also converted to a 15 year loan. I think many people forgot that, almost everyone I know that owns a home has re-financed in the last few years. Bush eluded to more minorities owning homes, he could have expanded on that more.

My salary is down from 3 years ago by about 15%, I was riding the technology boom. Lets face it, there was an oversaturation of the market, every moron was claiming to be a programming genius. I would say there was 1 out of 5 that should have been in the field.

I can't really speak to manufacturing type jobs though, the US in general has an issue with competiveness to countries that pay $0.50/day.

I hate paying $2.00/gallon for gas, I know the Middle East has us by the balls. Although we only get ~20% from them, they can effect the prices. I think China also plays a big part in the problem since their consumption has skyrocketed. It's not Bush's fault, the Saudi's know that is oil gets too pricy someone will find an alternative, its mostly due to supply/demand and terrorist fears.

Dear old Mom has some college but unfortunately it's more her location that is preventing her from a "real" job. I am from Cherokee NC where the largest employer is Harrah's Casino on the Indian Reservation. Population of my county is somewhere around the 15,000 range. The only employment one can get there that is year round is either to work at the Casino (which doesn't take out state taxes and you have to do so on your own) or work for a school, nursing home, or some other year round business. It is a seasonal economy and my mom won't leave b/c most of my family is there.

I left and went to college and haven't been back. The really shitty thing is how some employers (namely hers) gets away with making her work less than 40hrs a week so she can't be classified as a "full time" employee and get those benefits. So dear old mom doesn't get leave benefits, insurance or anything else like that. So she just keeps jugging along making what she does and using Medicare and me and my other brother (who left after high school) to supplement her when she can't make it.

I don't know the solution, I know that since Bush has been in office my Mom has struggled more. I know that I have had to give her more money as has my brother. She needed some education like how to use a PC so we enrolled her in PC classes which did land her the job she has now. She works in a Video Store which is also the home office for people to pay their Power, Phone, and Cell phone bills.

To the person who asked about sacrificing Social Security for a payroll tax cut I say this...there was a rather large surplus when Bush came into office what happened to it? If we had a surplus before that means surely we can do something to get there again.

To the person who said they make $20+ per hour, I am in the same boat as you. Actually I make over $25/hour and in the past two years I have seen my living expenses sky rocket. Mainly Gas for transportation, and my Power bill. Seeing this I wonder how familys who make half or less of what I make and have a family of 4 survive. I know my Mom wouldn't make it if it wasn't for me and my brother keeping her afloat; not every family has that lifeline. I don't know the solution but I have finally decided that I will not be voting for Bush in November, it's time for a change.
Ironically playing EQ has saved me more $$$ than when me and the GF used to go out all the time. Maybe everyone just needs to play more MMOs and stay inside and save thier $$$ :p

Go go outsourcing myths:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200410130821.asp

I particularly like the study by the chairman of Clinton's economic advisor council that found for every $1 outsourced to a job in India, the U.S. economy gains $1.12 to $1.14. Anyone with basic math skills can see that's a net gain for the U.S. economy.

I also like how the U.S. receives $22 billion more from countries outsourcing jobs to the U.S. than the U.S. outsources to other countries.

And for GE,

An Oct. 7 report in the Financial Times said that General Electric, which pioneered outsourcing to India, has decided to sell its international outsourcing business. It found that the savings from outsourcing were mostly one-time gains that tended to dissipate over time. One reason is high employee turnover. Call centers operated by GE in India lost 40 to 50 percent of their workers every year.
Maybe the Financial Times got the report wrong. I do know that the turnover rate in India is pretty accurate though.

In regards to IT some of that trend is reversing. Dell is in the process of moving its CS and tech support back to the US because of numerous customer complaints regarding bad service.
Who wants to work on the help desk anyways?

CS: Hello this is Dell, how can I help you?
Cust: My computer doesn't work
CS: Is it plugged in?
Cust: How do I know that?

Lots of dumbassees, I worked a help desk for a few months many years ago, was an Access application. I would answer the phone "Compact and Repair", 95% of the calls, was so boring. You would get the occasional idiot who doesn't know there are 2 buttons on a mouse.

A friend of mines company outsources all thier base line development to India. He then pays me and couple other folks to do the SQL side and go over thier code to ensure its accurate and effiecient. He saves a ton of money using developers from India, his top developer makes under 5 bucks per hour. he pays me 25 an hour to follow up on it, and the code they write is damn good. But he says he will never outsource the database side, because data control and managerment is too important.


Rev

Fildien, Looks like you need to spend the money to get your mom moved to a new area if she doesnt have good choices for jobs..

Lol I just recently had this same debate on a different forum. Dont say MOVE!

Ibudin

Regardless of which economist you can get to write a report favoring either side, the fact remains the same. If there are enough people that fall into the category of "job lost to outsourcing", they are free to vote based on their feelings about it. If they are enough to influence an election, then outsourcing is a major issue. If they cannot influence an election, then they are a minority.


I worked for a large manufacturing company. We started small and growth exploded. Then the board of directors brought in a new CEO and COO. Both men had a track record of down sizing companies, restructuring management, and outsourcing. The CEO even had a bankruptcy and foreclosure of AST computers (if you remember that company) under his belt. So these guys come in and do what? They gut the engineering, gut and outsource the manufacturing, and outsource to a local company the customer return dept. The company as I knew it has become a big sales/administrative/accounting company. They dont engineer, manufacture, ship, or ever see any of the products they sell.

Now the company is more profitable, the board is happy. But where is all that money now going? Into the pockets of the executives and share holders (of which 90% is the execs and board). Those number that say that for every 1$ we outsource, we add to our economy 1.14$ are misleading. They take that 1$ out of the pocket of the middle class and put the 1.14$ in the pocket of the top 2%

Phelonius

You guys are arguing about if an increased minimum wage is a good thing, President Bush and Sen. Kerry weren't. It looked like they both supported it...

Bush said something along the lines of "I support an increase in minimum wage, but when I tried to do it, it was stalled." Then he started talking about education.

Kerry said something along the lines of "I support an increase in minimum wage, and I will fight for it."

If an increase is a good thing or not doesn't matter in terms of who should be president, because they both supported it. I guess it could be argued that Bush didn't support as large of an increase, but who knows.

To be precise, Bush said, "Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage." To which one naturally asks, "You're a Republican President with a Republican Congress, so why didn't it happen?" But while McConnell was reportedly working on such a bill since April (http://www.hillnews.com/news/041404/wage.aspx), no legislation ever came (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30931-2004Oct13.html?sub=AR) of it.

I am not sure a large increase in the minimum wage is a good idea, seems like it would drive up a lot of basic services like dining, groceries, etc. I like Bush's answer about people getting educated is one way of solving the problem. I think if you wanted to make more than $5.15/hour, you could if you really tried.

Everything is priced on what the market will bear, and using the average income per capita in a given area, including rent, utilities, day care, groceries, gas, etc.

Raise the minimum wage to $7 per hour and you have raised the average income per capita, and costs will raise accordingly, and where is that extra money now?

(If this was pointed out earlier in the thread, my apologies......my eyes are tired)

I can't really speak to manufacturing type jobs though, the US in general has an issue with competiveness to countries that pay $0.50/day.

I can.

Unskilled labor may be being trashed, your assembly jobs and what have you..but skilled and even semiskilled labor are going the other way.

To break that down for you, machine operators(semi skilled) are in a steady demand right now. If you want a job doing this there is always something out there.

Skilled labor(your machinists, set up, specialty, leads) are in extremely high demand most places.

To use myself as an example, with my first degree and past work experience I could literally go to anywhere in the country and jump in at a foreman(or programming, specialty, etc) level or be there within a year.


To which one naturally asks, "You're a Republican President with a Republican Congress, so why didn't it happen?"

Heh, yeah Thormir..do you suppose you could ask that one in regards to judicial nominations too?

Crazy, huh?


don't know the solution, I know that since Bush has been in office my Mom has struggled more. I know that I have had to give her more money as has my brother. She needed some education like how to use a PC so we enrolled her in PC classes which did land her the job she has now. She works in a Video Store which is also the home office for people to pay their Power, Phone, and Cell phone bills.

Speaking of crazy..you say she went out, got some training, and ended up at a better job?


To the person who asked about sacrificing Social Security for a payroll tax cut I say this...there was a rather large surplus when Bush came into office what happened to it? If we had a surplus before that means surely we can do something to get there again.

Something happened to that surplus but I can't remember what...some little thing, I dunno had something to do with airplanes or something like that.

As to how we got there..remember that Republican congress Thormir hinted at?

Well, see, at one point the Republican majority actually had a real majority and muscled(and they had to, despite what Democrats try to say today..remember the spending not being approved for a month until he caved?) Clinton into budget reform.

As for the minimum wage, what you do by increasing that is take away everything from the people who already make seven bucks an hour, or eight or nine. Do you think they'll get a raise proportional to the minimum wage increase?

When you jack up the minimum wage you devalue the salaries of everyone out there, and guess who gets hit the hardest?

The lower middle class, the people Kerry "claims" to be out there fighting for.